[jallanite]

Originally Posted by dreeness

Whoa, pard. Best to load up with something other than blanks before you start shooting the messenger.

No-one is shooting anyone. Calling something a blank does not make it one.

No idea about how well you grasp the obvious, but them thar dastardly Hollywood moguls acquired the movie rights legally, for what at the time would've been considered a princely sum. If the first movie had bombed, that would've meant no billion-dollar Tolkien media empire.

No-one has denied this or does deny it. But part of this legal agreement was that Tolkien, and later his estate, was entitled to some of the profits. It looks like you are one who does not grasp the obvious.

But here's Chris Tolkien, all like... Hollywood is a satanic scabrous brothel, a loathsome sump of vile whoremongers peddling lowbrow filth to the hoi-polloi. ...And I shall have my percentage!

You support the legal right of the film-makers but deny the legal right of Christopher Tolkien? If you want to keep this on the level of legality alone, the law is the law. Is it your contention that if Christopher Tolkien does not like the films he should either give up his legal rights or be a hypocrite?

Which is hypocrisy, to use the technical term. (You can google it.)

Claiming that legal rights only applies to some people and not to others is indeed hypocrisy.

Not that ol' Chris is a villain, that would be too significant. More of a Frank Sinatra Junior, or maybe something a bit more abject.


"Hypocritical money-grubbing elitist reptile" works.

Name-calling doesn’t work at all. Do you think it OK to employ name-calling against Christopher Tolkien and not against the film-makers? Call me names too if you wish. It won’t matter. Most people will see that it is only empty name-calling by someone who has no other argument.

Would that be like someone who vacuums up every last motley scrap of paper JRR ever touched, hastily glues it together and sells the resulting garbled mess as a lost masterpiece?

No it wouldn’t.

Christopher Tolkien has the same legal right you go on about to write books about his father’s works as the film makers have to make their films. Christopher Tolkien’s books have sold unexpectedly well. I have not seen most of them pushed as a “lost masterpiece”. I have seen the films pushed as masterpieces.

Christopher Tolkien has a legal claim to a share of the profits of the films (if any). The claim of the film makers is that they have as yet made no money from the films. The courts disagreed.

If you believe that the courts were wrong, then explain how they were wrong. If your claim is on the legal level, then keep it on that level. Legally it would not matter if Christopher Tolkien were an axe-murderer and pederast and abominable writer. As executor of the Tolkien estate he has the right and duty to protect the estate. Similarly the film investors have the right and duty to protect their investment.

Your argument seems to me to be that because you think that Christopher Tolkien has done a poor job of managing his father’s legacy the courts should have accepted that the films have as yet made no profit. But one has nothing to do with the other. And sales of the books put out by Christopher Tolkien indicate, taken by themselves, that he is doing a good job.

The courts decided that the film investors were lying. That is not a blank. Under the legal agreement which J. R. R. Tolkien signed Christopher Tolkien is entitled to money according to the courts.