Best Lotr/hobbit movies

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

So following in the footsteps of the Star Wars franchise, what are the odds that Jackson will come back again with some..."midquels" to milk out some more money?

Refresh my memory- wasn't that basically the original plan? Before it was realised that the sheer epic vastness, or vast epicness, that is "The Hobbit" could not possibly be contained in anything less than a trilogy, wasn't it going to be one "Hobbit" film + an unspecified "bridging" movie?

[Zigûr]

That's what I recall as well: one "Hobbit" and one sort of "in between" film that would surely have been horrible fan fiction (moreso than "The Hobbit" ended up being, I mean).

Aren't the current legalities quite restrictive? To the best of my knowledge, based on what people have said here, the film rights holders are not allowed to adapt even things in the Appendices which are not also mentioned in the main body of The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings in some fashion.

I feel that leaves them with two choices:
1. Make the films again (unlikely for the time being)
2. Make stuff up (more likely)

That being said, I think the faceless grey-suited men at Warner Bros. would also have to decide a few other things, like whether Peter Jackson's name would bring in more net profit than hiring someone new who would be cheaper. I sometimes feel that there's an assumption that more Warner Bros./New Line/Zaentz/whatever "Middle-earth" films would involve Jackson as director, but I don't think that's necessarily the case.

[PrinceOfTheHalflings]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

That's what I recall as well: one "Hobbit" and one sort of "in between" film that would surely have been horrible fan fiction (moreso than "The Hobbit" ended up being, I mean).

Aren't the current legalities quite restrictive? To the best of my knowledge, based on what people have said here, the film rights holders are not allowed to adapt even things in the Appendices which are not also mentioned in the main body of The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings in some fashion.

I feel that leaves them with two choices:
1. Make the films again (unlikely for the time being)
2. Make stuff up (more likely)

That being said, I think the faceless grey-suited men at Warner Bros. would also have to decide a few other things, like whether Peter Jackson's name would bring in more net profit than hiring someone new who would be cheaper. I sometimes feel that there's an assumption that more Warner Bros./New Line/Zaentz/whatever "Middle-earth" films would involve Jackson as director, but I don't think that's necessarily the case.

I would have thought that the Appendices were fair game, since they ARE part of "The Lord Of The Rings". I am unaware of any copyright law that says that only certain parts of a book are adaptable. However, we don't want to give Peter Jackson any more encouragement. What is certainly off-limits is the other works, like The Silmarillion, HoME etc.

I like to think that a TV adaptation of "The Lord Of The Rings" would be a possibility in the future. Three 10 episode seasons - at approximately one hour per episode - that would mean 30 hours. That should give enough to cover the story, as written by Tolkien, and include all the elements in the books. Including Mr Bombadil!

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by PrinceOfTheHalflings

I would have thought that the Appendices were fair game, since they ARE part of "The Lord Of The Rings". I am unaware of any copyright law that says that only certain parts of a book are adaptable.

It's just what I've heard - that they can't adapt things from the Appendices that aren't referenced in the main body of the text. Someone here said that, although I can't remember who.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

It's just what I've heard - that they can't adapt things from the Appendices that aren't referenced in the main body of the text. Someone here said that, although I can't remember who.

This is news to me. Was it something that came up recently?

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

This is news to me. Was it something that came up recently?

No, it would have been a few years ago now, when the Hobbit films were coming out.

Now I feel like I'm going crazy

EDIT: Now that I think about it, I think it was more something like this:
If something is:
1. Mentioned in The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, The History of Middle-earth etc., AND
2. Mentioned in the Appendices to The Lord of the Rings, BUT
3. NOT Mentioned in the main body of the text of The Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit,
they can't use it.

I was oversimplifying before.
So this would mean, for instance, they couldn't make a film about Morgoth stealing the jewels and hiding them in Angband, with Fëanor waging a war to reclaim them, because while this is mentioned in the Appendices, it's not in the main body of the text and is primarily in The Silmarillion, if that makes sense.

On the other hand I could be completely wrong and these stipulations might not exist at all.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

No, it would have been a few years ago now, when the Hobbit films were coming out.

Now I feel like I'm going crazy

EDIT: Now that I think about it, I think it was more something like this:
If something is:
1. Mentioned in The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, The History of Middle-earth etc., AND
2. Mentioned in the Appendices to The Lord of the Rings, BUT
3. NOT Mentioned in the main body of the text of The Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit,
they can't use it.

I was oversimplifying before.
So this would mean, for instance, they couldn't make a film about Morgoth stealing the jewels and hiding them in Angband, with Fëanor waging a war to reclaim them, because while this is mentioned in the Appendices, it's not in the main body of the text and is primarily in The Silmarillion, if that makes sense.

On the other hand I could be completely wrong and these stipulations might not exist at all.

Well, there were those who argued that the mention of First and Second Age events in the Appendices somehow meant that the "Lord of the Rings" film rights extended to *all* related material, even if unpublished at the time. (One poster, in fact, was very insistant that Christopher Tolkien had morally and legally wronged Zaentz by publishing "The Silmarillion", and was anticipating a court case!)

What I can't recall is anyone proving the rights didn't even include the stuff in "The Appendices" in the first place. I'd love to be wrong, though...

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Refresh my memory- wasn't that basically the original plan? Before it was realised that the sheer epic vastness, or vast epicness, that is "The Hobbit" could not possibly be contained in anything less than a trilogy, wasn't it going to be one "Hobbit" film + an unspecified "bridging" movie?

Now that you mention it, yes it was.

Hmm...I made that comment as a little bit of a joke, however, if Jackson runs out of money there may yet be more films in the franchise.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

Now that you mention it, yes it was.

Hmm...I made that comment as a little bit of a joke, however, if Jackson runs out of money there may yet be more films in the franchise.

Hmmn... do you think this subject should have its own thread?

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Hmmn... do you think this subject should have its own thread?

Not unless the prospect actually materializes.