(re-posting as myself - if anyone just saw this under Lal's name)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sauron the White
What people say for public consumption is one thing. What they say in more private discussions may be another. I know of no illustrator or artist who is going to go out of his or her way to say anything bad about the Estate process for fear of costing themselves jobs over the years. That is simply a fact of business.
|
I'm sorry, but do you have any evidence for that statement? The Estate costing artists jobs??? This seems to be bordering on paranoia.
Quote:
|
If the Estate has apprehension about the depiction of monsters, perhaps they should excise them from the tales in the next editions. Absurd I realize. Their particular feelings about "monsters" are something that has evolved over time and now gets in the way. Just look at CoH and its obvious. Same thing with the newer SIL illustrations. You can show sweeping Middle-earth vistas over and over again but better not show the monsters. Why? I have no idea.
|
CT has never objected to depictions of monsters per se. The 'objection', such as it is, is against an
over emphasis on the monsters, not a ban. All the 'official' artists, Lee, Howe, Naismith, have depicted monsters in their work. Just taking the cover paintings of HoM-e we see Dragons on BoLT1&2 & Morgoth on LoB & Morgoth's Ring (along with Shelob btw).
Quote:
|
I cannot imagine any filmmaker willing to take on that type of overseer or adviser, spend hundreds of millions of dollars, and expect to have something that will return their investment. Just is not going to happen until the Estate undergoes a far different makeup.
|
Luckily for film-makers the Estate is not trying to force themselves on them. Its not obligatory for movies to be made. If any movie makers out there would like to be excused from the struggle & effort of trying to make movies of Tolkien's works I'm sure the Estate will write them a note.....