I honestly don't see why you have to put such a spin on it. The position of the Estate, & of CT himself, is that they have no official comment to make re the movies. At the same time its obvious that if CT, Adam, Priscilla, or any other member of the Family/Estate have seen the movies they will have formed a personal opinion on them. I don't see this as either being two faced, hypocritical or anything else.

What you seem to miss is that the Tolkien Estate is a very different thing to Christopher Tolkien, & a STATEMENT by the Estate criticising or praising the movies is not going to be forthcoming, as that is not their job. Bottom line is the Estate have nothing at all to do with the movies & have chosen to keep their distance from them. If CT, having seen the movies, decides the whole thing was a wasted opportunity & made a pig's ear out of a silk purse then he's entitled to his personal opinion.

I wasn't aware until Mr Hicklin's comments that CT had even seen the movies, or what his opinion of them was. All I can say is, I'm really not surprised he doesn't like them ...I would be interested to know his opinion of the BBC radio adaptation.

So the Tolkiens have a negative opinion, and choose not to broadcast it. Is that not their right? 'Two-faced and contradictory' would be an applicable charge if the Estate were to have publicly praised or endorsed the films, while privately loathing them: but this they have not done.

"No comment" doesn't contradict anything.

WCH - "No comment" indeed contradicts nothing. Unless of course there are other pronouncements, statements or actions which say otherwise. Which goes back to my original question as to what supports your statement that the last people in the world CT would work with would be Jackson and New Line. And you seemed to indicate this is much more than a mere suspicion or deduction that you hold true.

davem - everyone, including CT and his family and Estate partners, have a right to their opinion. That is fine. I do think it is less than honest for someone to take one position on an issue where they maintain the high road due to their official capacity in an organization and then take a far different position and claim it is only the feelings of a single individual and means nothing. Lets face it and be frank about this. Is there any single person alive who is more the face and power behindThe Tolkien Estate than Christopher Tolkien?

"No comment" contradicts nothing, including other comments. It's just a way of saying "whatever I may think, I'm not telling you." As a lawyer, my telling a reporter "no comment' doesn't mean I have no opinion about the case!

If your spouse/significant other puts on what you deem to be an absolutely hideous outfit, it's not 'contradictory or two-faced' to keep your mouth shut and avoid a night on the sofa.


"No comment" certainly isn't some sort of declaration along the lines of "I promise not to form a personal opinion about the movies when they come out."

Your argument would have force only if the Estate/Tolkien family had done some such thing. In fact, their personal and private opinions have remained private. Moreover, you again assert that there are 'far different' positions involved here: which is, in your phrase, comparing apples to cinderblocks when one 'position' is mere silence. Nothing in CRT's public statements declares or implies "I'm completely indifferent." Just "I'm not talking."

WCH - Is Christopher Tolkien a private person in the same way that you or I are? Can someone of the stature and fame of CT ever be a private person? I do not feel it is possible for someone of that stature to become a private person when they feel it is convenient for them to do so.

There are issues here which are never discussed by folks like yourself. For example.... why did the Estate willingly participate in the promotion of the movie through reissues of the books with cover tie-ins with the films in return for higher than normal royalty payments? How do you willingly participate in that, cash the checks from the revenues which were four to five times higher than in non-film years, and then engage in comments against the hand that is helping to feed you?

How do you sit at the head of the Estate, perhaps wielding enough power to be the Estate itself for all practical purposes, and take one position of "we have nothing to say about the movies" and then conveniently put on the uniform of the private person and engage in letter writings, conversations with people like yourself and others saying negative things about the movies? Especially when you have a very reasonable expectation that many of the feelings you expressed as a private person will somehow filter back in places just like this forum making your true feelings known to your hardcore fan base?

Yes, you sometimes try to take the high road of non-involvement but in actuality are taking a side which has been well known. But your hypocritical position then gives cover to your hardcover true believers who can then post in places like this and claim with a straight face that there is no position pro or con on the movies from CT and the Estate?

I think that is less than honest and straight forward. Just like I have repeatedly stated that the selling of COH as a "new book" was less than honest and straight forward as well.

Personally I would say that yes Christopher Tolkien is a private person in the same way as I am. In fact he is more of a private person than I am since I choose to voice my opinions in public fora and he does not. He has never been a public person other than in the way that any academic who lectures is public.

Why you seem to expect him to be grateful to Jackson I don't know. If he was interested in the money there were far more lucrative ways off exploiting his father's works than slaving away for 20 years. And LOTR was voted book of the century several years before the films came out. You behaveas if noone had heard or bought the books before the film. It was hardly and original screen play or a little known work. Jackson was quite happy to take advantage of the huge existing fan base and insult them.....

I very much doubt he had the power to stop tie in editions being made. I bought mine cos I needed a new set at a knock down price at a supermarket so I doubt that greatly supplemented CT's pension. As for the allegation that CoH was sold as a new book - that really doesn't stand up. the origins are quite clear in every serious article I have seen. And if you don't happen to know the origins it is going to be new...... nouvel but not neuf.. English unlike French does not make the distinction between brand new and new to you.

The Tolkien Trust has donated the incidental revenue from the film to charity. If this is hypocritical then I can only hope that in similar circumstances I would be as good a hypocrite.

Mithalwen. New is new. Period. Something which has been around in slightly other form for some time now cannot be described as new. Its like being pregnant or dead. Either you are or you are not. The fact is that the origins of COH mean nothing in this regard. The book was sold by the designated publishers of the Tolkien Estate and marketed as a new book. In fact, if you look at the websites which promoted the book you will see that the word NEW - the first new JRRT book in thirty years - was a major part of the advertising campaign. That is an undeniable fact.

According to your reasoning, if I have not seen a certain TV show that has already been shown many times, it is new to me. In that regard, everything can said to be NEW according to someone who was ignorant or not aware of it. That is stretching the definition of NEW to something even Orwell did not comtemplate.

You do realize that the contract between JRRT (and now his heirs) and his publishers gave him far more monetary payback and artistic control than almost every other author. The idea that the Estate stands there powerless and impotent while the mean old money-grubbing publishers milk the books with movie-tie ins is naive at best, ridiculous at worst.

The fact is a simple one. The publishers sold four to five more times the number of books each year for the four years of the film cycle. The royalty checks to the Estate were higher because of the movie-tie ins. Had there been no movies and no tie-in movie stills as covers, the Estate would never had reaped that extra bonanza. That is a fact if you go back and look at sales for the previous 20 years.

You say Jackson insulted the fan base. How can he willingly go about to do that and expect to have a hit film? The fact is this --- there are a small number of hardcore book purists who hate the films and take that tact as is their right. But hundreds of millions of people bought tickets to the films and obviously were happy with them. Insult indeed!

Regarding charitable donations. Someone was good enough to provide the links to the people who received those monies. Yes, many were deserving and worthwhile. Among others were groups dedicated to Tolkien research and study. So some of the money was kept within the same circles while lableing it as charity. Its there money to do as they want. Fine.

All I want is to stop the double talk. When I bring up the fact that CT does not like the films I am told by others here that that is not true - that CT is silent and without a posive position. Then others want to use the opposition and feelings of CT to show that the films were not very good. You cannot have it both ways folks. Pick a side - any side - just stay on it and stay consistent.

Not my reasoning Shakespeare's.... but clearly I am dishonest for referring to the car I have had for a couple of months as my new car....it was built in 2003.... so no new is not new period to speakers of English. It is one "signifier" more than one thing signified. Death isn't that clear cut either these days either or pregnancy come to that ...

People are free not to take a position since we don't live in Airstrip One.

Yours is clearly to bash a decent man for allegedly not liking films he had no contol over. In the scale of crimes it isn't child murder is it.

I don't care whether CT liked the films or not. Why do you since you clearly do not respect him? Clearly he can do nothing right in your eyes. I provided a link to the charity but clearly funding an archive for the author is a misuse of funds.

You claim to know CT's opinions as fact. Know better than someone who actually knows him. You seem to think he should have withdrawn his father's works from sale else he is a hypocrite.... ridiculous.

Really so what if the book sales went up because of the film? I bought a new set becasue the old ones fel apart and bought others because I happened to have the money in 2001-2 that I didn't have as a teenager. So my pounds count to wards you bonanza but I wasn't motivated by the films. I onlymanaged to sit through the second two once..... even when they came on TV I found better stuff to watch and they seem dated already. The Jackson films will I think be as the Nahum Tate "improvements" on King Lear - popular at the time but little more than curiosities now. Tolkien will owe no more to Jackson than Shakespeare does to Tate.

Look, if the Estate made any comment about the movies, positive or negative, it would be taken as an OFFICIAL endorsement/condemnation & link the Estate into the movies for good or ill. The Tolkien Estate cannot express an OFFICIAL opinion on something which is, in effect, a matter of taste. Maybe some members of the Estate like the movies & others don't. Maybe none of them like the movies, but they want fans to be able to watch them & make up their own minds.

It could just be as simple as the fact that Christopher thinks the movies are rubbish but doesn't want to upset anyone who likes them by stating that opinion in public.

Mithalwen - I am not bashing anyone, especially CTolkien. I think he has done fine work and am glad I was around to purchase and enjoy it.... several times over. This discussion started today when William CH said that CT would not allow Jackson use of anything outside of what New Line already owned if he was the last person on earth. Thats pretty strong. What made this interesting is that right here in this very forum many people have told me that CT was silent about the films and took no position neither pro or con. I consider William Cloud Hicklin to be an intelligent and well informed Tolkien reader and fan. In fact, in my humble opinion, I would place him in the top ten percent of intelligence here. So when he writes such a strong statement and seems to know the mind of CT, I stop and listen and ask why and where he got this from?

It seems to me that you can parse the language all you want and reduce yourself to the level of a courtroom lawyer arguing about the meaning of what is is. Most people think they already know. That is probably because they use common sense, live in the real world where people do not talk like Harvard debaters who challenge every definition if it does not fit their preconceived arguments.

I know what new is. I know what a new book is. I know that COH was by no means the first new Tolkien novel in thirty years. That is simply advertising fraud. And if the Tolkien Estate had any imput on that then shame on them for being part of it.

You say I claim to know the opinion of Christopher Tolkien. No I do not because I read others here saying many different things on the same subject. But I am trying to find out. And CT is no more a private person than Stephen King is. Despite the seclusion and demand for privacy, his name is out there like it or not. You cannot be that famous and then put on the shroud of a private person and think you can hide behind that. It just does not work that way. Very few people in the real world cares if CT is the Tolkien Estate of how the Estate is constituted, how they make decisions or what CT has to do with it. Christoper Tolkien is Christopher Tolkien and is a whole lot more of a public person than I or most of us ever will hope to be.

There is a difference between funding charities for the poor and funding academic or scholarly research for your own cause. If I have to explain that, then we better go back to what the true meaning of is is.

davem - when the Tolkien Estate permits the re-release of the LOTR books over a four year period with numerous tie-ins with the films, that is OFFICIAL INVOLVEMENT. In fact, thats about as official as you can get in the book and film business. This idea that they did not officially get involved in the films is a self serving fiction.

I think you're rather misstating the arguments. In the first instance, the observation was that CRT/the Estate did nothing to block, oppose, or hinder the films, nor issue any statements/give interviews rubbishing them or doing anything to harm New Line's revenues. Quite to the contrary: CRT issued a press release saying that he had no problem with people liking the films.

The second instance was CRT forming a personal opinion (like any human being inevitably would) and then (God forbid!) sharing that opinion with family and friends- NOT the public. I did not use that fact to 'show that the films are not very good.' I brought it up to back up my assertion that any rights deal with PJ or Shaye is very, very unlikely when you challenged me on it. I think I now regret saying as much as I did in this public forum. I can't help but wonder if you're not simply miffed that Tolkien's son doesn't think as highly of the movies as you do.


BTW, the Estate only has a say in HarperCollins hardback covers. With paperbacks HC (and HM and Del Rey) can do what they like- which explains the horrible original Ballantines.

WCH - I understand your position and respect it - I guess its pointless to keep going on this.

I do have one question which may open up something else. Let us assume that you are correct about the Estates limited powers in determining covers for some of the books. I do not know this as fact and it is a surprise to me since they seem to have all kinds of power about everything from illustrations to calendars. Buts lets assume you are correct. If they are indeed concerned about some of the past covers being horrible, why have they not done anything to get that changed so the problem does not happen again and again? I would guess that periodically the contract comes up for renewal and does not lock them in for eternity. And even if that were not the case I would also guess that HC wants to keep the Tolkien Estate reasonably happy since they are one of their largest long term earners. If they do not now have the power over covers they certainly have been in a position to obtain it.

I had read somewhere that in return for the Estates allowing movie stills to be used on the covers, they in turn received a larger participation in revenue from the sale of those books. Is that accurate based on what you know?

I'm not privy to the contracts, of course, nor would anyone think it's any of my business. I do know that in publishing generally authors almost never have a say in cover design. The peculiar relationship between Unwin/HarperCollins and the Tolkiens stems from JRRT's personal relationship with Sir Stanley and Rayner, and Christopher and Rayner after that, and dates from Tolkien's having drawn the original Hobbit cover, and the core design of the original LR covers. I don't believe it's contractual or any more than an habitual courtesy- and covers UK hardbacks only.

I would be very surprised if HC offered additional compensation, since as it is Tolkien's estate enjoys the hugely lucrative half-profits deal JRRT struck, and I doubt any publisher would pay even more! Besides, HC's David Brawn quotes Christopher as saying "The Lord of the Rings would sell in a brown paper bag."


_____________

The Tolkien Trust

a quick Google turned these beneficiaries up in the first few pages:

Doctors Without Borders
Famine Action
The Simon Wiesenthal Center
Asylum Welcome
Landmine Action
The Woodland Trust
Womankind (equal rights and female-owned businesses in developing countries)
World Wildlife Foundation
Forced Migration Review
Create (fine arts for poor children)
University of Manitoba Medical School
Who Cares?
Mind (rights and independent living support for the mentally ill and handicapped).
Story Museum
Oxford Literary Festival
The Porch Stepping Stone Foundation (homeless relief)
Bath & North East Somerset Community Safety & Drugs Partnership
Royal National Institute of Blind People
St Peter’s Church, Eynsham (new roof)
The Big Issue Foundation (homeless relief)
Breakthrough (breast cancer research)
St Mary's Hall, Stonyhurst College
Prisoners' Education Trust

and 3400 more hits....

Btw
 

Sorry to interject myself into this back-and-forth, but I was wondering if there was a thread specifically about the TH sequel (name?) and exactly what PJ has access to? It seems from your discussion here that he would only have access to LotR and TH and thus the LotR prequel/TH sequel would be based on sketchy info at best? Any speculation about the events to be contained in the sequel, assuming that TH ends where the book does and is extra-long because of the portrayal of a reconstructed White Council vs Necromancer fight? Tolkien's time line from LotR gives a rough outline of what could appear in such a film:

1. Sauron returns to Mordor and declares himself
2. Gollum searching for the ring
3. Last White Council meeting
4. Aragorn and Gandalf meet
5. Aragorn's exploits under Thengel and Ecthelion
6. Aragorn and Arwen
7. Gollum meets Shelob
8. Balin in Moria
9. Saruman's use of the Orthanc stone and subsequent ensnaring

Not to mention the birth and childhood of the various hobbit and human characters from LotR

The above-mentioned events are disjointed and separated by many years... I am suspicious of such a film

from Variety

Well, unless something is sorted out soon to get a Hobbit movie made there may not be a New Line Cinema for anyone to sue, as they seem incapable of making money out of anything that isn't Tolkien related....

Looks like plans for filming "The Hobbit" are getting finalized - this article sounds very definite: differences resolved, double studio backing, production dates scheduled, and Peter Jackson on board.

Oh, and here's the link to the official Hobbit movie blog.

I just noticed this on a couple of other sites, and the reaction is strange, from happy to disappointed. Me I am just happy it's being made. Finally.:)

Here's the scoop as reported from FoxNews: link here

It's cool that Peter Jackson's back, even if he is producing it. I wonder what they mean by two films, there is only one book. I don’t know how they are going to get enough material for two films, though if they do have two films they should certainly be able to get just about everything from the book in plus a little extra.

Me too - but my happiness is laced with dread over what Jackson might do to the story.

In LOTR he only had one dwarf to work with, but still managed to insert multiple instances of short jokes, dwarf tossings, and general comic behavior from and surrounding poor Gimli. In The Hobbit, he will have 13 dwarves as main charcters, and potentially hundreds more in The Battle of Five Armies - just think of the opportunities for basal humor! Jackson may be salivating already at this prospect - if his comic portrayal of Gimli is any guide for expectations - it might be hard to fit any real Tolkien dialogue into The Hobbit between all of the potential short jokes, dwarf tossings, body humor, etc. The audience could be rolling the isles at the whole grand slapstick comedy of it all ! :rolleyes:

I know. When I go to see this film I'll be taking some earplugs because I don't want my eardrums bursting with the inevitable inclusion of a resounding chorus of 13 dwarves belching at once. I'm totally looking forwards to resumption of lots of "But it's not part of the Legendarium" rants from davem though ;)

Two films? Eh?! Maybe, just maybe, they will not have enough material so they will slip in a little extra based on Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Wight?

Is Jackson actually going to direct this? Or just produce?

Does anyone have any ideas or suggestions as to where you might split the story in two? My money is on having the final scene of Hobbit I be a medium-shot of 13 barrels, Bilbo astride the last, drifting out of the dark of Mirkwood into the daylight on Long Lake...fade to black...roll credits.

My brother bets that John Rhys-Davies will play the voice of Smaug...Smaug won't have wings...Legolas will have brown hair...Arwen will have the *huge* warrior-princess role she was cheated out of in TTT...Andy Serkis will provide the mo-cap for all thirteen dwarves and Smaug...he also thinks Martin Freeman would make a good Bilbo. Oh, and that Legolas will help the Dwarves escape the prisons of the wood elves by creating "A Diversion!", namely, putting on a dress and attempting to seduce the guards away.

I think that at the beginning of FotR, when we first see Frodo and he's reading a book, I think that's Bilbo's book, and The Hobbit begins with Frodo reading it and it "coming alive", and PJ will edit FotR to add the line "The End" or something. Hey, better than "Storytime in Rivendell".

I, for one, wouldn't be a bit surprised at any of it, but am pleased as punch that the movie/s are being made. Yay!

Oh - and I hope Gimli makes a cameo - it'd be cool to see him begging to go with his father, and being told "No, you're too young". I'd like to see the White Council and more of the Rangers - maybe Halbarad could make an appearance? And Elladan and Elrohir! Perhaps they could be given a death scene, explaining their sad absence in LotR.

If they do try and pull in a bit about Tom then maybe somewhere around the Gollum encounter.

Otherwise, maybe when they meet Beorn? Or at the point they get captured by the Elves?

One thing you can be sure of is that Legolas will appear in these films and he will be in it/them for some time as this will reel in the girlies. So that will influence where the split happens.

If he doesn't there will be trouble. Serious trouble. :mad:

Ooooh, just thought.... the action figure will be good!

Martin Freeman would be pretty good as Bilbo actually.

My vote goes to Morgan Freeman as Bilbo...Danny DeVito as Thranduil...Gilbert Gottlieb as Thorin...Will Farrell as Bard...Warwick Davis as Beorn...The Backstreet Boys as the trolls...and David Tennant (Doctor Who) as the mayor of Lake Town. Throw in Judi Densch as the voice of Smaug, and you've got a winner.

Other ideas for Bilbo:

• Martin Short
• Steve Martin
• Jon Heder (Napoleon Dynamite)
• Mike Myers
• Ray Winstone

:eek:Are you insane?!

Most definitely.

Oh, and Kevin Federline as Gandalf would be a big hit as well.

Mods may want to consider two threads on this subject. One for legitimate speculation about this subject in a serious vein.

The other for the last few posts and their ilk.

Which one would I post my comments about flatulent Dwarves & shield-surfing Elves in?

btw, for those interested, this in New Line's official movie blog site: http://www.thehobbitblog.com/

Not sure. Do we have a category for Very Trivial Ancient History Which In The Greater Scheme Of Things Means Nothing?

Yeah - its the Movies forum.

Touche.

Oi! David Tennant could play anything and he'd be good :D

Who's Warwick Davis? What about Windsor Davies? Meh.

Warwick Davis - little professor Flitwick in the Harry Potter films (the midget music conductor), marvin the android in Hitchhiker's Guide (in the suit), and Wicket the Ewok in all the Star Wars films that had Ewoks in them.

How about Ray Winstone?

I AM RIPPER! SLASHER! TEARER! SLAYER! I...AM....BILBO!!!

Alright, I get it now ;)

How about Simon Cowell and Sharon Osbourne for trolls?