Subject for the Second film?

[Elmo]

the White Council (and bits form the unfinished tales can be used here)

I thought they wouldn't be allowed bits from UT ubless Chris Tolkien gave them special permission like the Wormtongue-Nazgul bit in the radio version. And I somehow doubt that'll happen.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Elmo

I thought they wouldn't be allowed bits from UT ubless Chris Tolkien gave them special permission like the Wormtongue-Nazgul bit in the radio version. And I somehow doubt that'll happen.

They can't use UT; in fact, they cannot use part of the LotR appendices either (those parts that deal with events in the 1st and 2nd age, and which are covered in the Silmarillion). I had read once the complete deal negotiated between Saul Zaentz Co. and Tolkien; unfortunately, I can't find the reference any longer. Technically speaking, the film rights are for The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, and those parts of the Appendices which don't infringe on Tolkien's other published (or at the time of the deal, unpublished) materials.

Therefore, the Tale of Years from the LotR appendix dating from the 3rd Age should be covered under the film rights.

[Sauron the White]

from Morthoron

they cannot use part of the LotR appendices either (those parts that deal with events in the 1st and 2nd age, and which are covered in the Silmarillion

That opinion goes against every single thing I have ever heard - including long debates on this site - about what rights Zaentz purchased. My understanding is that he bought cover to cover rights with nothing exempted. That would include the Appendicies as written but no more.

I would point out that the film rights were sold BEFORE the publishing of the SIL.

If you have factual documentation to support this new, far more restrictive viewpoint, I would love to read it.

[davem]

I have a recording of Raynor Unwin (Tolkien's publisher & very close friend) at the launch of Unfinished Tales in 1981 in which he states that the reason Tolkien struggled so much with the Appendices to LotR was that he effectively had to 'compress' the whole of the Silmarillion into them. Hence, one could argue that parts of Appendix A & B represent yet another version of the 'Silmarillion' - in fact, one could push it & take the words of Sam & Frodo on the stairs, that they are both part of the story of Beren & Luthien & the Silmaril to claim that what Tolkien actually sold the rights to was a small section of the Legendarium as a whole & that he (or his estate) is obligated to let them have the whole thing, because the Silmarillion is effectively part of LotR (or vice versa) - in fact Tolkien struggled for a long time to get the two works published together, as he felt that LotR could not be understood without a knowledge of the Silmarillion...

And certainly I think its pretty much beyond argument that he would have sold the film rights to the Sil writings when he sold the Hobbit & LotR rights - if anyone had wanted them.

Another interesting comment from Tolkien himself - Humphrey Carpenter related that when he went to see Tolkien to ask him if it was all right to put on a production of the Hobbit at a local school Tolkien told him he thought it was a very sill idea, but who was he (Tolkien) to stop him? He even suggested tunes for the songs (which mostly took the form of Gregorian Chant & which Carpenter decided was hardly right for a prep school production), & went along to see the performance, critiquing it severely at the end (while drinking all the wine from Carpenter's glass...).

In the end, I think its clear that Tolkien's attitude to dramatisation of his work came down to a conviction that the whole idea was 'silly' & bound to fail miserably, but (as long as he was asked for permission & received proper remuneration) it was fine with him.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

That opinion goes against every single thing I have ever heard - including long debates on this site - about what rights Zaentz purchased. My understanding is that he bought cover to cover rights with nothing exempted. That would include the Appendicies as written but no more.

I would point out that the film rights were sold BEFORE the publishing of the SIL.

If you have factual documentation to support this new, far more restrictive viewpoint, I would love to read it.

From personal experience, I can say that there is certainly a delineation point within the appendices -- only I am not quite sure where that exactly is contextually. I am waiting for a call back from one of the senior developers of Lord of the Rings Online (the online Middle-earth MMORPG, current subscriber base approx 300-400k). Lord of the Rings Online has the exclusive contract for the online gaming segment of The Hobbit and LotR proprietary rights owned by Tolkien Enterprises (aka Saul Zaentz Co.).

Having been involved in the game through the alpha and beta processes (and previously while the game was still in design), I can tell you that there are certain things the game cannot show or discuss, including anything dealing with 1st Age Middle-earth in the appendices; however, if there is a mention of a 1st Age name or place within the actual text of either The Hobbit or LotR, then said reference is allowed. For instance, Aragorn referring to Beren and Luthien is allowed because it is in the actual text, but the term 'Valar' or 'Maiar' is not because there is no mention directly in the text. Anything that predates a 3rd Age reference within the game must be passed by Tolkien Enterprises to assure they remain within their rights.

I will offer an update as soon as I hear more.

[Sauron the White]

That is a great spot to be in. Sounds like a great job.

One thing that I am not clear about. The game is licensed by Saul Zaentz through rights he has purchased from UA decades ago. Even if the license the game people have prohibit the mention of certain First and Second Age things, why would that necesarrily mean that the rights Zaentz posesses would limit him in the same way? It could simply mean that Zaentz wants to limit the scope of rights to others and he himself is not under the same limitations.

Or the limitations placed on the games license could simply be to limit the scope of content to events already in the films and Zaentz or New Line does not want new ground covered if they themselves have not yet done it.

All this is theory of course.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

That is a great spot to be in. Sounds like a great job.

It was not a job, it was a misadventure. Actually, I was offered a position as a Tolkien quest-writer in-game by Turbine (the company that produces Lord of the Rings Online); however, I declined as it would have moved me to another state and would have only been a temporary position in any case. I suppose I might have jumped on it if I were younger and without a family, but that was not in the equation.

In addition, I got physically ill at the lore atrocities evident in every fiber of the game, and have not played since prior to the game's official release due to mental health considerations (thus retaining what little sanity I still have).

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

One thing that I am not clear about. The game is licensed by Saul Zaentz through rights he has purchased from UA decades ago. Even if the license the game people have prohibit the mention of certain First and Second Age things, why would that necesarrily mean that the rights Zaentz posesses would limit him in the same way? It could simply mean that Zaentz wants to limit the scope of rights to others and he himself is not under the same limitations.

Or the limitations placed on the games license could simply be to limit the scope of content to events already in the films and Zaentz or New Line does not want new ground covered if they themselves have not yet done it.

All this is theory of course.

Okay here are the licensing commandments as I now understand them:

1) If references appear only in the Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit, thou shalt use them.

2) If references appear in both the actual text of LotR and TH, and in The Silmarillion (or other Tolkien publication controlled by the Tolkien Family Trust, such as UT or HoMe), thou shalt use them.

3) If references appear in The Silmarillion or other Tolkien publication, but not in LotR or TH, thou shalt not use them.

4) If references appear in the LotR Appendices, but not in The Silmarillion or other Tolkien publication, thou shalt use them.

5) If references appear in the LotR Appendices, and in The Silmarillion or other Tolkien publication, but do not appear in the actual text of LotR or TH, thou shalt not use them.

Again, as you pointed out Mr. White, this may merely be a measure of control Tolkien Enterprises has exerted on the users of the gaming license (in this case Turbine, but also Electronic Arts, which controls the X-Box and PSP gaming license); however, as litigious as the Tolkien Family Trust is known to be (as you know, they are currently suing Newline... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/bu...vie.html?fta=y), it is perhaps wise on Tolkien Ent's part to ensure that there is not the slightest hint of impropriety in their handling of their licenses in regards to the exclusive rights Tolkien Family Trust exerts over what remains of Tolkien's legacy. Or, perhaps more to the point, they are limited by copyright law against using references to The Silmarillion (unless specified) within their license.

After all, even though Tolkien Enterprise's licensing rights are granted in perpetuity, they can be revoked by the courts (which I am sure would please Christopher Tolkien, and be the crowning achievement of his curmudgeonly struggle for control of his father's legacy).

P.S. It is interesting to note that Games Workshops PLC is the only company currently that holds permissions from both Tolkien Enterprises and the Tolkien Family Trust to merchandise products. The permissions granted by the Tolkien Family Trust is limited to one single product: the game figurines of Khamûl the Easterling (as you know, the name Khamûl does not appear in the text of LotR of The Hobbit).

[William Cloud Hicklin]

After all, even though Tolkien Enterprise's licensing rights are granted in perpetuity, they can be revoked by the courts (which I am sure would please Christopher Tolkien, and be the crowning achievement of his curmudgeonly struggle for control of his father's legacy).

Rubbish.