Subject for the Second film?

[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.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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.

Well, if Gygax had been more widely read he might have a) been able to defend his use of the word Hobbit by citing the Denham Tracts, & b) have produced a game that was a little more than a bad rip off of Tolkien...

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.

Surely there's all the difference in the world between protecting what you own & lusting for something you don't?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by davem

Well, if Gygax had been more widely read he might have a) been able to defend his use of the word Hobbit by citing the Denham Tracts, & b) have produced a game that was a little more than a bad rip off of Tolkien...?

What is humorous about Gygax is that to his dying day (he died this year) he claimed that Tolkien elements in his game were only added because of fans' insistence, and that he found Lord of the Rings "too slow-paced for me."

The most apt quote regarding Gygax was the memorable: "Gary Gygax is a collector of vintage Tolkien pornography."

Originally Posted by davem

Surely there's all the difference in the world between protecting what you own & lusting for something you don't?

Would something that close to your heart, and something that is so inextricably wound through through the very fabric of your life be simply disregarded or lopped off like an unnecessary appendage? A sort of literary appendix? It would certainly be irksome to me to see my father's (and from an emotional and editorial extent, my own) work be out of my control.

As a retired musician (I no longer play the pub circuit or record) I can tell you that I personally know many folks who have spent years trying to retrieve their works -- the rights for which they legally signed away in a time of youthful naivety or due to financial straits. I see no difference in this instance.

[Sauron the White]

yes folks, but be careful, be very careful , unless you have an interview with Christopher Tolkien that has been authenticated and legally certfied by a panel of attorneys stating very clearly and without any shading stating that

"I HATE THOSE DAMN MOVIES AND WANT THOSE RIGHTS BACK AS MINE"

you risk being labeled here as a wild speculator who has no evidence for your ridiculous claims.

Forget that much of what we do here is speculation ... throw all that to the wind. Either present your legally certified documents which will stand up in court or just get out of the way. That has been made clear to me.

[davem]

Ok.... I'd be willing to bet that if Saul Zaentz was to walk up to CT & offer him the movie rights back, gratis, with no strings attached, Ct would take them, thank him politely, & probably offer him a glass of Old Winyards or equivalent, but...

That's not the point at issue here. None of us know what CT wants in regards to the movie rights. Maybe he does want them back, maybe not.

What do we actually know about CT's attitude to the PJ movies in particular, & to visual adaptations of his father's work in general. Well, we know (via Mr Hicklin) that he doesn't care for PJ's adaptation of LotR. We also know that he feels his father's work is particularly unsuitable to visual representation. Finally, we know that he has refused to sell the film rights to any of his father's other writings. What can we surmise from those facts about his desire, or otherwise, to get back the film rights to LotR & TH?

Absolutely nothing. The fact that he didn't like what Jackson did with his father's work is hardly 'evidence'. Tolkien himself thought Humphrey Carpenter's plan to put on a high school play of TH was 'silly' (& told HC that to his face, but went on to state that if Carpenter wanted to do so who was he (ie Tolkien) to stop him - & even went on to suggest tunes for the songs & actually attend the performance. And as far as refusing to sell the rights to any further writings that may have as much to do with his experience with New Line's refusal to hand over what they owe, & with the fuss of negotiating the contract, as with any kind of 'moral' objection.

Now, I have absolutely no idea what CT's feelings are re the movie rights - mayhap he spends every waking moment scheming to get them back. Or maybe he has no desire at all for them. And that, gentlemen, is the point. None of us know what CT wants. You can speculate as much as you want but ultimately you won't get any closer to the truth. CT is the only one who knows what he feels about the film rights, & so far (again, as far as I know) he's said absolutely nothing about it.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by davem

What do we actually know about CT's attitude to the PJ movies in particular, & to visual adaptations of his father's work in general. Well, we know (via Mr Hicklin) that he doesn't care for PJ's adaptation of LotR. We also know that he feels his father's work is particularly unsuitable to visual representation. Finally, we know that he has refused to sell the film rights to any of his father's other writings. What can we surmise from those facts about his desire, or otherwise, to get back the film rights to LotR & TH?...Absolutely nothing.

Let's see, he didn't care for the adaptation of LotR (and from what I've read, that is an understatement), he doesn't feel his father's work is suitable for visual representation, and he has steadfastly refused to sell any of the film rights he currently holds.

Let's see, that's three negatives regarding film rights, and you say there is nothing to be surmised by that? *rolls eyes*

Originally Posted by davem

You can speculate as much as you want but ultimately you won't get any closer to the truth. CT is the only one who knows what he feels about the film rights, & so far (again, as far as I know) he's said absolutely nothing about it.

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Forget that much of what we do here is speculation ... throw all that to the wind. Either present your legally certified documents which will stand up in court or just get out of the way. That has been made clear to me.

Well then, satis verborum.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Okay, you want to see evidence of such an intention, or the reverse?

In 2011-12 (Lord of the Rings) and 2013 (Hobbit) the Estate will have the right under US copyright law to cancel and revoke *every* single assignment of copyright JRRT ever made in his lifetime. (No kidding- it's called 'copyright reclamation' and you can look it up). Although it wouldn't apply to the rest of the world, without US film rights no studio would ever undertake such an expensive project.

So wait and see.