Film Rights to First & Second Age

[Sauron the White]

nope, its not from Hostetter. Think much higher upon the food chain.

Keep going along these lines and pretty soon you'll have brought in the Illuminati and the JFK assassination.

You invent this cabal concept and then accuse me of being wacky believing in it? And then you bring up this. Where do you get all that straw to build so many men?

[Sauron the White]

WCH - its not fair to tease you. You may see the author of the template here

http://mysite.verizon.net/wghammond/

[Nerwen]

I'm getting confused. When I last saw this thread, the debate was over a purely hypothetical movie being made about the First or Second Age (specifically, about Númenor).

That has, as far as I can see, no bearing on the actual proposed films. Or do they want to use Of The Rings of Power and the Third Age for the second one? Is that it?

And Sauron the White, I've read through your arguments on the copyright issue several times, and I still don't understand them. At least, William Cloud Hickli stated exactly what I thought you were saying... and you say he's using "strawman" tactics, i.e. misrepresenting your arguments.

So, can you please explain yourself a bit more clearly?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Ah, Wayne Hammond, is it? One of the best. And I suppose he does draw very modest royalties from his (limited readership) books- but certainly not enough to allow him to quit his day job. Most academics do, after all, write books.

What drew the conspiracy-theory quip from me was your use of the phrase 'connect the dots.' One which, unfortunately, is used by a lot of tinfoil-hatters, and exemplifies the sort of 'logic' they use. Over the top of me.

Nonetheless, I don't especially like the insinuation that people only dislike the movies for some venal motive. Isn't it really rather the case that Tolkien Scholars are by their very nature purists?

[Sauron the White]

Nerwen ... I will try as you request.
My point is that it is not clear what rights are owned by the Tolkien Estate and what rights are owned by Zaentz and New LIne when it comes to material outsideofthe actual HOBBIT and LOTR stories.

Why? Because JRRT included a wealth of historical information in his Appendicies which were part of LOTR - ROTK and sold as film rights in 1969. Eight years later, the book length SILMARALLION is published and now there are two accounts of these events.

Many people here, including Mr. Hicklin, speak as if they have a Supreme Court decision in front of them clearly spelling out in great detail what can be done and what cannot be done with these film rights. This is not the case in reality. There is much grey area .

Since it was announced today that other material will be used in the upcoming two films outside of the normal LOTR and HOBBIT stories, I thought it would be a good idea to explore the entire idea and approach it from something other than the convention wisdom.

My point has nothing to do with CT causing to be published the SIL. Nothing. I think that was terrific. But it certainly makes the film rights to the Silmarallion material in LOTR a much more murky situation which I think is glossed over by folks like Mr. Hicklin who appear to think their viewpoint is Holy Writ or came down from the mountain top led by a choir of angels.

I refer you to my opening post in this thread.

[Aiwendil]

Many people here, including Mr. Hicklin, speak as if they have a Supreme Court decision in front of them clearly spelling out in great detail what can be done and what cannot be done with these film rights. This is not the case in reality. There is much grey area .

Surely it's this simple: the film rights include material in the LotR appendices but exclude material in other publications. Explicit use of material that is in the Silmarillion and not in the appendices would be illegal. You don't need a Supreme Court decision to tell you that any more than you need one to tell you that, yes, pointing a gun at someone and shooting it is illegal (even if the gun is licensed).

There is a potential grey area relating to the appendices: it's conceivable that if a movie were made there might be material in it about which it's not clear whether the '77 Silm. or HoMe was or was not a source. But the ambiguity in such a case could only lie in whether the film used ideas from works other than TH and LotR, not whether the use of such intellectual property is legal.

[Nerwen]

STW, thanks for explaining your position. What I still don't understand is why you think CT's act of publishing The Silmarillion affects the rights to material in The Lord of the Rings.

I don't see how this can be the case.

Are you suggesting that lawyers for Tolkien Estate might claim anything which is treated in both The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion violates the copyright on the latter? I don't think they'd get very far.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

Ah, Wayne Hammond, is it? One of the best. And I suppose he does draw very modest royalties from his (limited readership) books- but certainly not enough to allow him to quit his day job. Most academics do, after all, write books.

What drew the conspiracy-theory quip from me was your use of the phrase 'connect the dots.' One which, unfortunately, is used by a lot of tinfoil-hatters, and exemplifies the sort of 'logic' they use. Over the top of me.

Nonetheless, I don't especially like the insinuation that people only dislike the movies for some venal motive. Isn't it really rather the case that Tolkien Scholars are by their very nature purists?

I don't like it either, for two very good reasons. Firstly, those involved with the Estate are in general very nice people, and those of us in the Tolkien Society will vouch for that - they are friendly, open and generous. And membership of the Tolkien Society is hardly like the ruddy Freemasons, anyone can join for twenty quid.

The other reason is that a lot of long-time Tolkien fans feel a little bit annoyed that the work of this man, the lifetime's work, is subject to being picked over like the corpse of an Orc. We live in a world where nothing is left unexploited for the great god of Mammon, even the water we drink is costed and turned into profit. It makes a lot of fans a little bit sick to think of people like Peter Jackson sitting in his calf leather armchairs, swigging ruddy Chateauneuf De Pape and eating truffles off the back of a slave boy or something because he's made a profit out of the literature we've quietly loved for years before he'd even heard of it.

Fine, he can make his films, they will no doubt be enjoyable and I for one am looking forwards to collecting some more action figures, but he certainly cannot expect us not to criticise and discuss what we think he's doing wrong. And to be fair - I think he expects us to carp at him. He needs to bear that in mind before considering writing about Gandalf turning the Spiders of Mirkwood into zombies and having Thranduil fling a lawnmower at Thorin.

[Sauron the White]

Lalwende - I do understand some of your ire. But just to be clear, Pater Jackson did not make a profit off the literature written by JRRT. His money came from making three movies based on the work of JRRT. There is a difference. You make it sound like Jackson did what Ace Books did and ripped off Tolkien to reap undeserved profits.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

My point is that it is not clear what rights are owned by the Tolkien Estate and what rights are owned by Zaentz and New LIne when it comes to material outsideofthe actual HOBBIT and LOTR stories.

Why? Because JRRT included a wealth of historical information in his Appendicies which were part of LOTR - ROTK and sold as film rights in 1969. Eight years later, the book length SILMARALLION is published and now there are two accounts of these events.

Many people here, including Mr. Hicklin, speak as if they have a Supreme Court decision in front of them clearly spelling out in great detail what can be done and what cannot be done with these film rights. This is not the case in reality. There is much grey area .

There is NO grey area. There are no overlapping rights. There is no ambiguity, except in your fevered imagination. NONE.

It's amazingly simple. Zaentz/New Line can use material found between the covers of the Lord of the Rings. Period. That's it. The existence of other Middle-earth material changes nothing- they have no rights to it. PJ is constrained to doing what he did with, say, the (EE) Gladden Fields- stick to the very brief LR account without any reference at all to the detailed UT narrative of the same event.

Christ, this is (for a lawyer) as maddening as it is for a paleontologist confronting some no-evidence-for-evolution Fundamentalist.