Christopher Tolkien: kill HOBBIT film

[ArathornJax]

As someone who is in their early forties, and waiting to hear if I have cancer or another disorder in my upper G I understand your point. The last week has brought to my face the issue of my own mortality and in a way though scary, it has been a very good thing. It has made me re-evaluate my priorities in life and as I hope and pray for one of the three things I may have outside of cancer (and it probably is not cancer but always the chance as the Doctor told me) I too would agree with you that I would love to go with my son who will be 17 at the time and my wife and my daughter who will be 18. I could almost day as much as I am excited about some things about The Hobbit movie adaptation, I am more excited to wake up each day and feel the wind on my face, raindrops dropping, seeing lightning and hearing thunder, the laughter of my kids and my wife and their affection. In the end what more does one need in life? Loved ones, a few good friends, good food and enjoyment in the simple things of life. Perhaps we are in the end, we all need to be more Hobbit like than human like as we get caught up in this crazy world we call life.

But I digress. I also agree with davem and William that money controls this and so in 2011 and 2012 there will be movies whether we view that as a good or a bad thing. Though I enjoy most of the adaptations (there are a couple . . . ) for me, the books are in the end, the cannon, the very source of all and I enjoy them the most.

[Sauron the White]

Arathorn -- wishing you all the best news..... lighting a candle for you.

[Lush]

!!!

Good luck, Arathorn.

Movies will get made. Lush will enjoy (if she's around, when you're living in the most unstable region in the world, you never really know). Christopher Tolkien? Don't really have an opinion on him either way. It would be kinda morbidly cool if he did pace all night, muttering to himself, but then again, he's not a character, but a person.

[Knight of Gondor]

I'm disturbed by how many people have filed legal gripes against New Line. Extras and actors (there's a list on a thread somewhere in these hollows) filed suit, PJ was upset with them, and now Christopher Tolkien is upset. New Line had better clean up shop!

[Galin]

Mr. Hicklin (or anyone) do you know what the deal is with this 'tax bill'? I might have missed something, but I don't recall Hammond and Scull mentioning it.

The 'picture' (albeit general) that I get from Chronology is that Tolkien was in need of cash during the 'Zimmerman Days' due to retiring IIRC -- but later JRRT appears to leave the film stuff largely up to A&U, due to his earlier promise.

No?

[Sauron the White]

The tax liability incurred by JRRT is no different than the tax liability incurred by any other British citizen: the law is applied and he pays his determined share under the law. It is said that he needed money to pay his tax bill. We all need money to pay all of our bills - taxes are merely one of them.

In any case, the sale of film rights to UA was a decision made by a grown man of sound mind acting of his own free will.

[Galin]

I meant was this a specific bill that caused Tolkien to 'reluctantly' agree to sell the rights, as is implied in this excerpt from Timesonline (and elsewhere).

'... We all need money to pay all of our bills - taxes are merely one of them. In any case, the sale of film rights to UA was a decision made by a grown man of sound mind acting of his own free will.'

No one said otherwise. I'm looking to see if any tax bill was really part of the scenario here, as far as Tolkien's ultimate decision; especially as this story seems to give it prime importance.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

The tax liability incurred by JRRT is no different than the tax liability incurred by any other British citizen: the law is applied and he pays his determined share under the law. It is said that he needed money to pay his tax bill. We all need money to pay all of our bills - taxes are merely one of them.

I don't think you appreciate the fiscal situation in UK the late sixties early seventies. This is from the HM Revenue & Customs website:

Special rates have been introduced twice within the post-war years, causing income tax in certain circumstances to exceed 100%.

In 1967-68, the special charge was imposed. ...over
£8,000, the rate was 45% which - with income tax at 41.25% and surtax at 50% - meant a total rate of 136.25%.

Even now the basic rule of taxation here is that if you become suddenly wealthy you will get clobbered because what we like to call "tax planning" and lay people call loopholes usaully require time to be efficient. Therefore those who have always have had money can plan to hand it on to the next generation as intact as possible through trusts, limited companies and offshore arrangements.

People who become unexpectedly wealthy in later life are liable to get squeezed until the pips squeak. When I was in private practice our wealthiest private client was worth over £6million. Our genius of a Tax manager managed to get that down to an "official" lsiting of £2million. There is one accountancy joke - "Q, What is 2+2? - A. What do you want it to be?"

Decisions may be different and less free when the determined share is one and a third.