If the Children of Húrin was filmed... - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

William Cloud Hicklin · 04-01-2007, 11:06 AM

To take the two postings in order: HarperCollins is 'the' Tolkien publisher simply because they bought out Allen & Unwin (or rather Unwin Hyman) in 1990. There's no reason for CT to change horses, esp. since HarperCollins was willing to continue publishing the later volumes of The History of Middle-earth on what was effectively a break-even basis. That doesn't however mean that the Estate has a great deal of control: if you look at the various film spin-off books' copyright pages you'll see a notice to the effect of "Published with permission but not approval of the Tolkien Estate."

Calendars and illustrations fall into a slightly different realm than covers. In general a publisher is entitled to use any cover they bloody well please, which is why the original Ballantines came out with those Barabara Remington covers that JRRT positively loathed. But A&U/HC can't put out an edition with internal illustrations without the Estate's say-so, and CT does (understandably) want the right of review. Calendars used to be a Ballantine affair which JRRT simply signed off on; CT's position was essentially one of benign neglect until one appeared with pictures he really detested (Kirk, I believe), after which he tightened up.

As to Alan Lee: AL has of course been the Estate's first choice illustrator since long before the movies ever darkened the horizon, and AL's participation in the project wasn't going to earn him a blackball! I suspect this was the subtext of CT's press release, where he disclaimed 'thinking ill' of those involved with the films.

Ted Naismith: If I read the same interview, I don't believe that it was monsters which were forbidden (after all Glaurung appears), but character portraits- and in Ted's set the humanoid figures are indeed small and distant, or seen from the back.

04-01-2007, 11:06 AM	#33
William Cloud Hicklin Loremaster of Annúminas Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 2,330	To take the two postings in order: HarperCollins is 'the' Tolkien publisher simply because they bought out Allen & Unwin (or rather Unwin Hyman) in 1990. There's no reason for CT to change horses, esp. since HarperCollins was willing to continue publishing the later volumes of The History of Middle-earth on what was effectively a break-even basis. That doesn't however mean that the Estate has a great deal of control: if you look at the various film spin-off books' copyright pages you'll see a notice to the effect of "Published with permission but not approval of the Tolkien Estate." Calendars and illustrations fall into a slightly different realm than covers. In general a publisher is entitled to use any cover they bloody well please, which is why the original Ballantines came out with those Barabara Remington covers that JRRT positively loathed. But A&U/HC can't put out an edition with internal illustrations without the Estate's say-so, and CT does (understandably) want the right of review. Calendars used to be a Ballantine affair which JRRT simply signed off on; CT's position was essentially one of benign neglect until one appeared with pictures he really detested (Kirk, I believe), after which he tightened up. As to Alan Lee: AL has of course been the Estate's first choice illustrator since long before the movies ever darkened the horizon, and AL's participation in the project wasn't going to earn him a blackball! I suspect this was the subtext of CT's press release, where he disclaimed 'thinking ill' of those involved with the films. Ted Naismith: If I read the same interview, I don't believe that it was monsters which were forbidden (after all Glaurung appears), but character portraits- and in Ted's set the humanoid figures are indeed small and distant, or seen from the back.