Or no Hobbits at all...

[zxcvbn]

Originally Posted by davem

Of course, as far as I know, the movie makers didn't even bother to consult Christopher - which is hardly a sign of respect. And something else to bear in mind here is that the producers of the stage show requested, & received, access to all Tolkien's linguistic writings.

I can't help feeling that if the movie makers had consulted Christopher he would have been prepared to help out, & that the movies would have been all the better for it - and anyone who thinks that he would simply have demanded every single thing from the book should be included, & would have vetoed every change simply misunderstands him.

My dear davem, I'm not sure if you'd been following the development of the LOTR films from the beginning(I guess not) but the filmmakers DID approach the Tolkien Estate for assistance(including approval of scripts). The Estate declined since they feared that their participation would be seen as an endorsement of the films, making them 'official'. I believe the old PJ interview where he says this is still up on AICN somewhere.

[davem]

Originally Posted by zxcvbn

My dear davem, I'm not sure if you'd been following the development of the LOTR films from the beginning(I guess not) but the filmmakers DID approach the Tolkien Estate for assistance(including approval of scripts). The Estate declined since they feared that their participation would be seen as an endorsement of the films, making them 'official'. I believe the old PJ interview where he says this is still up on AICN somewhere.

That's interesting - I've got a tape of a South Bank Show (UK arts programme) where Jackson stated that they'd avoided getting involved with the Estate as they (ie the film makers) didn't want the movies seen as 'officially authorised' versions, because this was just to be their own take on the story.

So, I've now seen both versions, so I'm not sure what the actual truth is. I can see that the Estate would maybe not want to get involved if their participation was to be trumpeted by New Line as official endorsement, but as I stated CT offered a great deal of help with the radio series, & also gave permission for the producers of the Musical to use Tolkien's linguistic writings. Of course, in neither case did the Estate officially recognise, or endorse, the productions. However, things can be done 'behind the scenes'. 'Approval of scripts' is a delicate matter - would they have allowed CT a veto over anything he found unnacceptable, or was it a case of them showing him the scripts & simply saying 'This is what we're going to do, let us know if you like it'? Did the movie makers offer such a veto - if not, I can see that they'd decline to participate. All I can say, without knowing more about exactly what kind of approach they made, is that in two adaptations (one of which is very much in a visual form) they offered some degree of assistance, & in the other they had no participation. They seem to have a good relationship with both the producers of the radio & stage versions & a pretty poor one with the makers of the films...

[Child of the 7th Age]

This article just appeared in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/mo...html?th&emc=th

The article mentions the other suits against New Line as well--the second lawsuit filed by Zaentz last December which still must be tried and the one by 16 New Zeeland actors that will come to trial in December 2008.

One attorney feels that part of the problem in all this litigation is the fact that New Line computes its profits differently than other studios:

What they’re accounting for is different than the majors, because the majors are worldwide distributors,” said David Colden, an entertainment lawyer with the Beverly Hills firm Colden, McKuin & Frankel, which is not involved in any of the litigation. New Line’s international division works through foreign distributors that are not part of the company, while major studios are equipped to distribute directly abroad. The way New Line calculated payments based on its revenue from its foreign distributors of “Rings” was a major issue in the first Zaentz suit, filed in 2004.

Also, any litigation will be tremendously complicated because there are so many contractual agreements to consider: (1) the literary-rights agreement made in 1969 with United Artists (2) the agreement made in 1976 which sold the rights to Zaentz (3) the agreement of 1997 that licensed them to Miramax, AND, (4) the final agreement in 1998 that licensed them to New Line

[davem]

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

Also, any litigation will be tremendously complicated because there are so many contractual agreements to consider: (1) the literary-rights agreement made in 1969 with United Artists (2) the agreement made in 1976 which sold the rights to Zaentz (3) the agreement of 1997 that licensed them to Miramax, AND, (4) the final agreement in 1998 that licensed them to New Line

Well, New Line made an initial payment to the Estate of $62,500 so they must have been working to one of those agreements - unless they just picked that figure out of thin air. It would seem from the case brought by the Estate/Harper Collins that the agreement it is based on is the original. I don't think its legal to change the rights of one party to an agreement if the other party sells its rights on. Tolkien, & by extension the Estate, has the rights he signed up for, & is due the money. The idea that all that money could be made from the movies & yet, because contracts are sold on/leased out, he doesn't get what the contract said he should get is at best ridiculous & at worst dangerous - wouldn't it mean that any writer who signs a similar film deal could end up in the same position - its a perfect way for a studio to get the rights to any work virtually for free.

Sorry, but if New Line can get away with paying nothing to the Estate because of the way their movies are distributed then its no different to people illegally downloading movies or music in order to avoid paying for it. The idea that NLC could make so much money out of Tolkien's lifetime work & avoid paying anything for it because of this kind of 'creative accounting/distribution' is sickening, & I'm sorry, but if they get away with it then no-one who calls themselves a Tolkien fan should have anything to do with their movies or merchandising, & anyone who goes to see the Hobbit movie or its sequel should be ashamed of themselves. Ripping off Jackson or Zaentz is one thing, ripping off JRR Tolkien, & the CHARITY that operates in his name is another.

Of course, if anyone felt inclined to download them illegally.......

[William Cloud Hicklin]

The Complaint alleges that New Line failed to report 80% of the DVD income, and I have a feeling, combined with what Child said, that New Line was running a time-honored scam- er- methodology of Hollywood Accounting: New Line Cinema sold the DVDs to its wholly-owned subsidiary New Line Video at 20 cents on the dollar, and then claimed that 'they' (NLC) only realized that much revenue, pretending that NLV's revenues wound up on Pluto.

Incidentally, the Complaint is now online at http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs...e21108cmp.html

[zxcvbn]

Originally Posted by davem

That's interesting - I've got a tape of a South Bank Show (UK arts programme) where Jackson stated that they'd avoided getting involved with the Estate as they (ie the film makers) didn't want the movies seen as 'officially authorised' versions, because this was just to be their own take on the story.

davem, I couldn't reply for a few days because my computer was down, but now here is the link to the actual interview.
http://list.pvv.org/pipermail/hexago...er/001863.html

We are dealing with the "estate", rather than
Christopher personally. They have made their
position very clear: While they are in no way
opposed to a film(s) being made, they do not
want to be involved.

The reason is basically simple: if they had any
involvement, then the films would become
"official" - in other words, they would be seen
as being endorsed by the estate. This is a
situation that the estate does not want, as
they consider themselves to be protectors of
Tolkien's written word, not film makers. I
don't think the estate will be reading scripts
or commenting on the movies. We keep them
informed on progress, which they appreciate,
but they want their involvement to be very arms
length.

This interview dates back to 1998, before the films proved to be such a success and when all parties involved were a lot more humble. So I'm inclined to think PJ was telling the truth. What year is that South Bank show tape from?

Originally Posted by davem

So, I've now seen both versions, so I'm not sure what the actual truth is.

Maybe both? The two don't exactly contradict each other.

Originally Posted by davem

I can see that the Estate would maybe not want to get involved if their participation was to be trumpeted by New Line as official endorsement, but as I stated CT offered a great deal of help with the radio series, & also gave permission for the producers of the Musical to use Tolkien's linguistic writings. Of course, in neither case did the Estate officially recognise, or endorse, the productions. However, things can be done 'behind the scenes'. 'Approval of scripts' is a delicate matter - would they have allowed CT a veto over anything he found unnacceptable, or was it a case of them showing him the scripts & simply saying 'This is what we're going to do, let us know if you like it'? Did the movie makers offer such a veto - if not, I can see that they'd decline to participate. All I can say, without knowing more about exactly what kind of approach they made, is that in two adaptations (one of which is very much in a visual form) they offered some degree of assistance, & in the other they had no participation. They seem to have a good relationship with both the producers of the radio & stage versions & a pretty poor one with the makers of the films...

Well, I believe the Tolkien Estate had the rights to the stage and radio versions. On the other hand they didn't have the film rights. A few years ago while googling
I came upon an web page on Simon Tolkien(Christopher's disinherited son) where he said that the reason Christopher felt that the Estate should have no involvement in the films is because they didn't own the rights and had no creative control(JRRT chose cash over kudos). Simon countered by saying that the films were going to be made anyway, better to have the Estate involved so thay maybe they can 'steer' them in the right direction. That, among other things, led to the rift between father and son.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

....That, among other things, led to the rift between father and son.

Oh, no. The rift went back years and years, although the press coverage at the time took that angle, and Simon's original interview was craftily phrased to allow unwitting journalists to assume what was not actually said. Even PJ confirms that at the time he first met Simon in 1998 he and his father hadn't been on speaking terms for a long time. This has everything to do with the unhappy relationship between a father and the child of his first marriage, and little or nothing to do with movies.

That to my mind doesn't excuse Simon airing the family's dirty laundry in an effort to peddle his own book. (Incidentally, Simon isn't 'disinherited': he still gets his cut.)


In any event, 'steering' was never a realistic option- PJ and/or New Line were *only* interested in being able to trumpet the Estate's 'seal of approval' for marketing purposes.

[zxcvbn]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

In any event, 'steering' was never a realistic option- PJ and/or New Line were *only* interested in being able to trumpet the Estate's 'seal of approval' for marketing purposes.

Yeesh. Why do the purists ALWAYS have to assume that the filmmakers have the worst possible attitude towards the source material and are only in it for the money?! If that's the case, then did PJ and New Line approach Alan Lee, John Howe and David Salo for the same reason: to get their endorsement of the films, being well respected in the Tolkien community? NOPE!! Maybe New Line had that kind of attitude, but there's no doubt PJ and the folks at Wingnut Films and WETA only wanted the Estate's assistance to help create a more accurate, painstaking vision of Middle-earth. Notes on Tolkien linguistics, advice on costumes, architecture etc.

[Galin]

Well, on the languages, Jackson chose much fabricated Neo-elvish over much of Tolkien's actual Elvish in the books.

But this provides yet another example of how little appreciation Jackson had for the tone and "feel" of Tolkien's work. Yes, Jackson went to considerable length to include Elvish in the movie: but he did so mostly by _discarding_ Tolkien's _own_ Elvish exemplars -- which, please note, are almost entirely in the form of songs, poems, spells, and exclamations made in crisis or _de profundis_ that are used sparingly so as to punctuate the story and to not cheapen the effect of the Elvish -- and instead substituting for them long passages of made-up "Elvish" (however skillfully) constituting (mostly banal) _dialogue_ of the sort entirely _missing_ from Tolkien's own application of Elvish in his story (or anywhere else). As such, it is really part-and-parcel with Jackson's treatment of all of the source material: it touches on it, it _appears_ (at first glance, and on the surface) to be almost reverential towards that material, and yet on further consideration in fact mostly and quite badly fails to capture, present, or even to understand the most important themes, aspects, and tone of the work, substituting instead Jackson's own really quite shallow, banal, and clichéd sensibilities.' Carl Hostetter

Disagree with this if you like, but to my mind Jackson didn't have to go to the Estate or anyone to represent Tolkien's Elvish, just the books basically (maybe to someone on pronunciation, though the books are quite handy there too).

In any case, what proof is there (I'm not saying there isn't any) of Jackson wanting to go to Christopher Tolkien, or anyone who is actually part of the Estate, for advice on languages, costumes, architecture, for a more accurate vision of Middle-earth? And how far was this going to go, even if true? And did it include advice on story too? proper emphasis on battles or monsters? important themes? advice on characters?

The section quoted in the linked interview is quite brief: who exactly was 'dealing' with the Estate and about what?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Yes, Galin: it was much more important to sell "the fans" on the appearance of authenticity than to deliver the genuine article.

[zxcvbn]

Originally Posted by Galin

Well, on the languages, Jackson chose much fabricated Neo-elvish over much of Tolkien's actual Elvish in the books.

Blame David Salo for that. Only a tiny minority of Tokien fans study Middle-earth linguistsics, and I doubt there is anyone on this forum who has enough knowledge
to distinguish between 'authentic' Sindarin and Salo's neo-Sindarin. I'm pretty sure Jackson also knows zip about Elvish, so he approached one of the most well-known Tolkien linguists out there, David Salo. Who, by the way, is respected and considered a credible source on Tolkien linguistics by MOST of the Tolkien fan community. It's only in hardcore linguistic circles, consisting of those who've studied Tolkien languages for years, that he's disliked for his inaccuracies.

Originally Posted by Galin

Disagree with this if you like, but to my mind Jackson didn't have to go to the Estate or anyone to represent Tolkien's Elvish, just the books basically (maybe to someone on pronunciation, though the books are quite handy there too).

The LOTR books only contain about two to three dozen Elvish words, all in all. To properly study Elvish you need someone who's spent years reading Tolkien's unpublished texts.

Originally Posted by Galin

In any case, what proof is there (I'm not saying there isn't any) of Jackson wanting to go to Christopher Tolkien, or anyone who is actually part of the Estate, for advice on languages, costumes, architecture, for a more accurate vision of Middle-earth? And how far was this going to go, even if true? And did it include advice on story too? proper emphasis on battles or monsters? important themes? advice on characters?

It would be logical. What else would they want? What proof is there that the filmmakers only wanted the Estate's official endorsement?

It seems to me that some people are going out of their way to 'prove' how Jackson intentionally 'bastardized' the books for profit.