Quote:
Originally Posted by zxcvbn
Is this a joke post?
|
No, it was meant to ironic.
Quote:
|
My, my. What an accurate opinion you seem to have about non-purists. This kind of snobbishness is exactly what I dislike about purists. One does not have to be a purist in order to have read the books well(I've read them all multiple times and so far I haven't found any jello in my ears, thank you), and being a purist doesn't elevate you to a higher plane of existence so that you can judge others as you like.
|
I'm sorry, I was posting a response to StW, part of a long running argument between us on the quality (or lack thereof) of the LotR movies & whether there should be any similar fiascos in future.
I am, of course, pleased to hear that you have read the books.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by StW
And are not the Appendicies with its clear and unmistakable mention of The Silmarallion and events part of LOTR?
While I do not have access to the original sales contracts between JRRT and the film company - UA I think - I imagine it included all pages of LOTR which would be inclusive of the Appendicies. And that includes lots of material from the First and Second Age as well as much Third Age material not in the body of either THE HOBBIT or LOTR itself. Is it your opinion that the currents rights holder does not legally hold those rights from the Appendicies? And what legally would you base that view on if it is your opinion?
|
They have a right to use the word 'Silmarillion' in any future adaptation, to mention that The Silmarillion exists, but they don't have the right to use any material not included between the covers of TH & LotR. There is a great deal of material they could use in there, but nothing that isn't in there.
BTW, if you want to know exactly what material is available to use in LotR you could ask
zxcvbn - apparently he's read LotR numerous times.