Subject for the Second film?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Moreover, neither Saul Zaentz nor MGM/UA are named as defendants in the lawsuit, which means that they cannot have rights taken away.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by davem

which I interpret to mean that if New Line don't hand over what they owe then the Trust don't want New Line to be able to make any more movies based on Tolkien's work - which at worst would mean that Zaentz would be free to sell them to any other studio (who would then be free to hire Jackson & Del Toro, or whoever they wanted, to produce/direct.

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Moreover, neither Saul Zaentz nor MGM/UA are named as defendants in the lawsuit, which means that they cannot have rights taken away.

I wasn't referring to the current lawsuit (Tolkien Family Trust vs NewLine) in my post (the one WCH referred to as rubbish); as a matter of fact, I haven't discussed the current lawsuit anywhere in this thread, thank you. If you harken back to what Sauron and I were actually discussing, it regarded the Tolkien Enterprise license, and what it specifically entails (or does not entail -- from a theoretic standpoint, obviously).

Originally Posted by davem

If anyone has seen any statement from Christopher or anyone else associated with the Trust/Estate that they have any intention, or even desire, to get back the movie rights I'd be interested to hear it.

Actually, I'd be more intrigued to see a quote from C. Tolkien stating that has no interest or desire in retrieving the film rights; however, if he did so desire, from a legal standpoint he'd be daft to utter it in public.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Actually, I'd be more intrigued to see a quote from C. Tolkien stating that has no interest or desire in retrieving the film rights;

Why on earth expect CRT (or anyone) to affirmatively state a negative? Do we routinely ask people to tell us everything they don't plan to do? Be reasonable.

Btw, I didn't call your whole post rubbish, merely the perpetuation of the bogeyman caricature-Christopher.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Why on earth expect CRT (or anyone) to affirmatively state a negative? Do we routinely ask people to tell us everything they don't plan to do? Be reasonable.

Again, from a legal standpoint, I don't believe C. Tolkien would answer the question directly in either case. Would it be unreasonable for him to desire the film rights? On the contrary, he would be a lunatic if he didn't harbor interest in the return of the license. I would be quite amazed if he had never discussed what options the Family Trust had in that regard with his attorneys. But that is something that would never be discussed publicly, would it?

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

the perpetuation of the bogeyman caricature-Christopher.

I referred to him as curmudgeonly, which by any stretch of the imagination he is (I have on occassion referred to myself as a curmudgeon, so I don't view the term as a pejorative). I admire Mr. Tolkien's adherence to principle regarding his father's legacy.

[Sauron the White]

In playing poker, and in dealings of serious nature, playing your cards close to the vest and not alerting the others to your true intentions are part and parcel of playing the game to your ultimate advantage.

Is there any reason why, at this point in time, CT needs to publicly announce that he wants control of the film rights back? If he sees the future legal proceedings going his way, can he not make adjustments to his legal strategy which go beyond what he has said so far through his attorneys?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Is there any reason why, at this point in time, CT needs to publicly announce that he wants control of the film rights back?

Is there any reason why, at this point in time, CT needs to publicly announce that he wants an underground fortress full of flying monkeys?

This " wants control of the film rights back" comes from your imagination.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Is there any reason why, at this point in time, CT needs to publicly announce that he wants an underground fortress full of flying monkeys?

An underground fortress full of flying monkeys? Now, WCH, that's just plain silly! Everyone knows flying monkeys need above-ground air space for take-offs and landings. How about a skull-shaped mountain fortress on an uncharted island?

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

This " wants control of the film rights back" comes from your imagination.

Given Tolkien's scrupulous protection of his family's rights (right down to threatening a lawsuit against Dungeons and Dragons in the 70's for their use of the term 'hobbit' -- which was thereafter changed to 'halfling'), one has to consider what is reasonable in regards to this question. Is it reasonable to believe that the thought of continued digressions and outright inanities -- the appalling diminution of his father's literary legacy -- sticks in Christopher's craw like an undigested piece of pork? I would think any reasonable person would answer in the affirmative.

Is it reasonable to think that if the legal opportunity existed for the Tolkien Family Trust to regain the film rights, would they would not grab that chance as if it were the One Ring itself? Again, it is reasonable to believe so.

Has Christopher Tolkien said publicly he wishes to get the film rights back? No, but then again he doesn't grant interviews; however, it is reasonable to believe that the thought has crossed his mind on more than one occassion.