Silmarillion-movie?

[Sauron the White]

Could you please set out, in clear terms, what you think the Estate is really like & what, exactly, you think they are doing 'behind the scenes'?

And just how am I suppose to tell the world "what the Estate is really like & what they are doing behind the scenes".

You ask for something that cannot be delivered to you. But then, you knew that when you wrote the words.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

And just how am I suppose to tell the world "what the Estate is really like & what they are doing behind the scenes".

You ask for something that cannot be delivered to you. But then, you knew that when you wrote the words.

I asked what you think they're like, & what you think they're doing. You seem to have spent a good few posts on this thread almost, but not quite, accusing them (& CT in particular) of being control freaks, threatening the careers of artists, intimidating anyone who gets in their way & sundry other offences. All I'm asking for is clarification. As far as I can see all the Estate has done is state what kind of covers they want on the books, & decide they don't want to sell the movie rights - both of which they have a perfect right to do & neither of which is actually hurting anyone. Add to that that the Tolkien Trust, which they also administer, makes regular & generous gifts to a wide number of humanitarian charities & organisations, & I think you have a pretty decent bunch of human beings who simply care about the way JRR Tolkien's work is presented to the world.

[Sauron the White]

Lets take this in very small doses davem.

You seem to have spent a good few posts on this thread almost, but not quite, accusing them (& CT in particular) of being control freaks, threatening the careers of artists, intimidating anyone who gets in their way & sundry other offences.

Almost but not quite..... what the h?????? Is that some way of going through the backdoor and getting the accusation out there but being able to deny that you ever accused me of it in the first place because you couched it in such terms?

I have no memory of - nor does a rereading of posts - indicate that I ever said the Tolkien Estate was threatening the careers of artists. If I specifically said that, please point it out. And please, DO NOT tell me that I said an artist did not want to anger the Estate for fear of loss of future jobs and that is what constitutes proof of your statement. You have this terribly insulting way of taking what somebody says, repackaging it so that it sounds much worse than it is, and creating a strawman you can better battle with. You are not alone in that. Others seem to embrace that type of strategy also.

Saying the very true statement that has been told to me by illustrators - that they carefully select their public statements so as to not bite the hand that feeds them is one thing. They do not want to lose possible future commissions of Tolkien related material. That would cost them money. That is the way the world works. It is not the same thing at all with your exaggertion saying I have accused the Estate of threatening the career of illustrators.

But that sounds oh so much more the drama queen. You seem to be very good at taking three inches and turning it into a foot.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Back to Hollywood and Tolkien: here is a superb glimpse of the studio attitude- PJ himself recalling ameeting with Miramax' Harvey and Bob Weinstein:

“Bob Weinstein had obviously read the treatment, or skipped through it, but I remember this moment as if a lightbulb had gone on and there was almost a palpable moment of sudden understanding. Bob said: ‘Wait! So the Elf is like a bowman, shooting arrows, yeah? And the Dwarf has got axes and he can throw axes? And Sam, he’s got this magic rope, right? And Frodo’s got this light thing?’ Then he got really excited and you could see there was this moment of utter revelation and he said: ‘It’s like that movie where they had the explosives expert and the code expert and the marksman and they all had their own special skill . . . It’s the f****** Guns of Navarone!’

[davem]

You seem to be saying that artists are afraid to anger the Estate by saying the 'wrong' thing. It seems to me that any artist who said anything the Estate found 'offensive' would be biting the hand that feeds them & that they would only have themselves to blame if they did that.

This is not 'proof' that the Estate behaves unreasonably in any way. If an artist wants to work for any employer they have to show that employer respect. This would only be a problem if the demands of the Estate were unreasonable, or that what they considered 'unreasonable' was in itself unreasonable or irrational. To merely state they don't want an over-emphasis on monsters is hardly unreasonable. Hence your whole argument seems pointless. Its no different to saying they don't want Emus & Christmas trees on the covers as far as I can see. To be honest I can't see what you're making a fuss about.

BTW "Almost but not quite" is a reference to a joke in the Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, where a vending machine was able to read someone's mind & produce exactly the drink they really want at that moment, but always produced a liquid that was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea...... You seem to be 'Almost but not quite.' accusing the Estate of something, & I wish I was clear on what it is....

However, this discussion is going round in circles & I'm getting off now....

[Sauron the White]

You seem to be saying that artists are afraid to anger the Estate by saying the 'wrong' thing. It seems to me that any artist who said anything the Estate found 'offensive' would be biting the hand that feeds them & that they would only have themselves to blame if they did that.

In many employer-employee relationships there normally exists an imbalance in terms of power with the employer holding most of the cards. What in most situations would pass for constructive criticism or a difference of opinion or even just employee input can be construed as (to use your term) something "offensive" when directed to the boss. Employees have have much thicker skins than the bosses do if they want to keep their jobs. So if you give your input to a thin skinned boss and they take offense and it ends up costing you, is that always the fault of the employee. Or would you just take that position if the employer with the power is the Tolkien Estate?

This is not 'proof' that the Estate behaves unreasonably in any way. If an artist wants to work for any employer they have to show that employer respect. This would only be a problem if the demands of the Estate were unreasonable, or that what they considered 'unreasonable' was in itself unreasonable or irrational. To merely state they don't want an over-emphasis on monsters is hardly unreasonable. Hence your whole argument seems pointless. Its no different to saying they don't want Emus & Christmas trees on the covers as far as I can see. To be honest I can't see what you're making a fuss about.

I am sure that in the opinion of some, the Estate has never acted unreasonable in any way in all the past years. And just how do you define "an over-emphasis on monsters". Is there a scale which tells you what the acceptable quota is? Obviously not. Its totally subjective. As I said before, the monsters are in there and are in there for a very good purpose. JRRT wrote it that way. This whole no monsters thing seems to me to be the Estate attempting to sanitize the whole
ME tales - at least as it is illustrated.

Again, your tendency to exaggeration simply does a disservice to your otherwise intelligent posts. You are a very knowledgable man who has a great knowledge of Tolkien and his world. I respect that. It is a mystery then as to why would you mention emus and christmas trees when nobody is discussing them? Why would you compare the honest difference of opinion about the depiction of monsters with silly things like emus and christmas trees? You try to make fun of something serious by introducing the absurd. It does no credit to you.

BTW "Almost but not quite" is a reference to a joke in the Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, where a vending machine was able to read someone's mind & produce exactly the drink they really want at that moment, but always produced a liquid that was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea...... You seem to be 'Almost but not quite.' accusing the Estate of something, & I wish I was clear on what it is....

Sorry - never read it. Perhaps the problem is the trying to read ones mind to get what they "really are thinking". Accept what I and other say by carefully reading the words we write without trying to change them or alter them so you can make a more clever response. Or worse, by trying read our minds to see what we really think about something. Or worse yet, to post an argument against what you think we really are thinking after you speculate on our "real" thoughts.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

In many employer-employee relationships there normally exists an imbalance in terms of power with the employer holding most of the cards. What in most situations would pass for constructive criticism or a difference of opinion or even just employee input can be construed as (to use your term) something "offensive" when directed to the boss. Employees have have much thicker skins than the bosses do if they want to keep their jobs. So if you give your input to a thin skinned boss and they take offense and it ends up costing you, is that always the fault of the employee. Or would you just take that position if the employer with the power is the Tolkien Estate?

Please tell me where these delicate flowers are. Which artists have been driven to despair & loss of hope by the cruel dictates of the Tolkien Estate? I only know of three main artists used by the Estate, Lee, Howe & Naismith, & they are among the biggest fans of the books & as far as I'm aware have never had any problems with the Estate at all.

I am sure that in the opinion of some, the Estate has never acted unreasonable in any way in all the past years. And just how do you define "an over-emphasis on monsters". Is there a scale which tells you what the acceptable quota is? Obviously not. Its totally subjective. As I said before, the monsters are in there and are in there for a very good purpose. JRRT wrote it that way. This whole no monsters thing seems to me to be the Estate attempting to sanitize the whole
ME tales - at least as it is illustrated.

Yes, its the opinion, in the main, of CT, & he owns the rights & has the final say on cover art. Why is that a problem? Are there artists out there who can only paint monsters? Tolkien did not over-emphasise the monsters in his writings - they are present, but not the focus of the stories, & CT seems merely to require cover art to reflect that.

It is a mystery then as to why would you mention emus and christmas trees when nobody is discussing them? Why would you compare the honest difference of opinion about the depiction of monsters with silly things like emus and christmas trees? You try to make fun of something serious by introducing the absurd. It does no credit to you.

Tolkien to Rayner Unwin
12 Sept. 1965

[In August 1965 Ballantine Books produced the first 'authorised' American paperback of The Hobbit, without incorporating Tolkien's revisions to the text. The cover picture showed a lion, two emus, and a tree with bulbous fruit.]

I wrot to [his American publishers] expressing (with moderation) my dislike of the cover for The Hobbit. It was a short hasty note by hand, without a copy, but it was to this effect: I think the cover ugly; but I recognize that a main object of a paperback cover is to attract purchasers, and I suppose that you are better judges of what is attractive in USA than I am. I therefore will not enter into a debate about taste -- (meaning though I did not say so: horrible colours and foul lettering) -- but I must ask this about the vignette: what has it got to do with the story? Where is this place? Why a lion and emus? And what is the thing in the foreground with pink bulbs? I do not understand how anybody who had read the tale (I hope you are one) could think such a picture would please the author.

These points have never been taken up, and are ignored in [their] latest letter. These people seem never to read letters, or have a highly cultivated deafness to anything but 'favorable reactions'.

Mrs. ---- [a representative of the paperback publishers] did not find time to visit me. She rang me up. I had a longish conversation; but she seemed to me impermeable. I should judge that all she wanted was that I should recant, be a good boy and react favorably. When I made the above points again, her voice rose several tones and she cried: 'But the man hadn't TIME to read the book!' (As if that settled it. A few minutes conversation with the 'man', and a glance at the American edition's pictures should have been sufficient regard to the pink bulbs she said as if to one of complete obtusity: 'they are meant to suggest a Christmas Tree'. Why is such a woman let loose?

Sorry - never read it. Perhaps the problem is the trying to read ones mind to get what they "really are thinking". Accept what I and other say by carefully reading the words we write without trying to change them or alter them so you can make a more clever response. Or worse, by trying read our minds to see what we really think about something. Or worse yet, to post an argument against what you think we really are thinking after you speculate on our "real" thoughts.

But you keep making out that the Estate are imposing unreasonable demands on artists, threatening to stop using their work (& thus causing them to lose money) when there is no evidence at all being presented for anything like that.

CT & the Estate don't want 'dark' images on the covers of the books. They don't want the focus on the monsters & violence. What is the problem? Why does that make them bad people?

Sorry, but it still feels like you're making some kind of veiled accusation about control freakery & an attempt to ruin careers or somesuch.

[Sauron the White]

davem..... based on presentations I have seen in person with various illustrators plus personal conversations, it is my belief that the Estate likes to have a strong hand in these matters. Obviously, the Estate, as gaurdians for the work of JRRT, would consider that a good quality that they posess. It seems that you do also. And that is fine. I do feel that this "not too many monsters" approach is an unnecessary sanitizing of the actual stories that JRRT wrote. Not that the stories themselves are edited, but that the visual portrayal of them is. So what we end up with is a less than honest visual presentation in book form of what was actually written.

Again, I refer you to the website of Nasmith and several score of color rough paintings he did as suggestions for full illustrations. The ones that did not make it were either action sequences of the darker side of JRRT's work. Some have speculated that this is a reaction to the Jackson films. But this was in motion before the films ever came out.

I refer you to the recent CofH and the near absence of the areas I am concerned with despite their obvious presence throughout the text.

My problem is what we end up with is a less than honest approach to selection of illustration material in that several areas that JRRT wrote about seem off limits to illustrators. As a consumer, and as a fan of illustration, this is less than satisfying to me.

I simply disagree with the Estate policy on this matter. That does not make them bad people. That does not make them evil. For me, that just makes them wrong. I do not know as much about JRRT as you do. I admit that. However, I do love his work expecially the Middle-earth stories. I also happen to love illustration and illustrated books. I simply think that the policy of the Estate as it pertains to "monsters" and the darker side of the material is wrong and is depriving consumers of what could be a better package.

[-silverqueen666]

few whispers here and an unknown director poking their head out there and plans have been put in place to film select stories out of the silmarillion that can make a connection enough to provide a story line that can continue to the hobbit and lotr movies. The unknown director is rumored to be DC Anderson or an AJ Walkin.

(sorry my cousin wont stop bugging me until i write this on every tolkien forum,but i and i'm also speaking for my cousin hope this little rumor she heard from her production team boyfriend is true)