Lawsuit by Tolkien Estate may halt The Hobbit - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

PrinceOfTheHalflings · 07-31-2009, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mithadan

The real issue seems to be, will New Line want to sink millions into doing preproduction and signing talent for the movie if their rights to distribute it are at all in question?

Well ... some money has already been sunk into this movie. Guillermo del Toro is involved and he can't be doing it for free. Screenplays are being written.

My understanding is that preproduction goes full speed ahead this September, so yes - it's a hell of a risk if they lose the rights in October.

It would be interesting, to say the least, if the rights reverted back to the Tolkien Estate. I suspect that at this point they (and by 'they' I principally mean CJRT) probably wouldn't kill off the movie, BUT you can imagine the Estate wanting script approval.

Now ... looking at the contract I see that (7.5% of) the movie's gross is split between the Estate and the publishers (after production costs are deducted). So ... does that mean the rights revert back to the Estate AND the publishers in the event of a breach? I'd better have another look.

Tuor in Gondolin · 08-01-2009, 01:20 PM

Quote:

It would be interesting, to say the least, if the rights reverted back to the Tolkien Estate. I suspect that at this point they (and by 'they' I principally mean CJRT) probably wouldn't kill off the movie, BUT you can imagine the Estate wanting script approval.

That might not be a bad result. If CT had been active in LOTR movies some
of the worst "innovations" might have been avoided. But my impression is
he hasn't ever been in favor of movie adaptations.

Mithalwen · 08-01-2009, 01:38 PM

No they wouldn't. Authors almost never have any clout over what film makers do with their works when the rights have been sold .... a notable exception being JK Rowling who had the advantage of not having completed the series at the start of filming and could say you can't do x because it compromises something in a later book.

If you want a contemporary example, look at "My sister's keeper" . Despite probably paying a substantial amount for a work by a bestselling author, Warner Bros decided to turn an intelligent story with serious issues and a twist in the tale in to a routine tearjerker by changing the ending which somewhat missed the whole point of the book. Jodi Picoult has explicitly said on her website that it was completely out of her control and all complaints should be directed at the film makers.

Being extremely grateful that CT has spent decades of his life bringing so much of his father's writing to mass audience, I am glad that he wasn't obliged to spend any time on an entreprise he had no interest in. I can only imagine that he, more than anyone, can see Middle Earth in his mind's eye and has no need of film makers to realise it for him. May he spend what years are left to him in his own amusement...

Maybe I should dig up the old threads since WCH being both a lawyer and a
and correspondent of Christopher Tolkien made a number of well informed posts...

davem · 08-02-2009, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

No they wouldn't. Authors almost never have any clout over what film makers do with their works when the right have been sold .... a notable exception being JK Rowling who had the advantage of not having completed the series at the start of filming and could say you can't do x because it compromises something in a later book.

.

On the subject of JKR & the Harry Potter movies, Orson Card makes some interesting points

Quote:

The only point of comparison is Peter Jackson's adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy. Without denying his magnificent filmmaking achievement, I still have to point out that in almost every case where he changed significant plot points from the book, leaving some out and adding new ones, he cheapened and worsened the resulting story.

Part of this is that Jackson's writing team was not as good as the two writers who have worked on the Harry Potter films. LORD OF THE RINGS reeks of film-school bushwa in its silliest and most damaging changes.

But most of the difference is simply that Tolkien did not need cutting. He was already quite spare. Scene for scene, there is no waste. Rowling, on the other hand, is not (and has never claimed to be) a writer of Tolkien's talent, skill, or insight. Her novels COULD be cut, and indeed needed to be, and so better writers working with more uneven books were able to improve on Rowling, where Jackson's team could only damage Tolkien.

The result is that in a way, the Harry Potter series becomes, after the first two films, a FILM achievement that was more difficult and more remarkable than Jackson's undoubted achievement with LORD OF THE RINGS.http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/...4355119093.txt

Mithalwen · 08-07-2009, 10:37 AM

I can't find it online but there was an article today in the Telegraph. Got CT's age wrong and said he was a virtual recluse

and made it seem that the Trust only gives to causes linked to the works (eg Archive). Other than that it was fairly neutral. Nevertheless these occasions when you happen to know they are wrong always makes you wonder about everything else they report...

PrinceOfTheHalflings · 08-09-2009, 05:06 AM

Try this article instead:

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/hea..._of_film_cash/

No talk of CT being a recluse and also a picture of Priscilla. Priscilla is quoted as saying they don't want to shut the film down but do want to take it away from New Line.

To address an earlier point - how much control a writer has over a film - it all depends on what is negotiated when the film rights are sold. If you think a writer can't control a film then you haven't met Michael Crichton!

If the Estate does get the film rights back then they ARE in a position to dictate terms. Something to bear in mind is that in many cases nowadays film rights are not sold permanently - instead they have a "use it or lose it" clause. In other words, what is sold is not the right to make a film "some time in the future", but rather an "option" to make a film during a specified timeframe (often as little as 18 months). If production of the film does not begin within that timeframe then the rights revert to the author who is then free to negotiate a new movie deal. Obviously this wasn't the kind of deal that Tolkien signed, but if the rights revert back to the Estate then it would be in their interest to do this kind of deal in future.

This is good sense, as over 90% of movies never make it from the concept stage to actual production.

I know of several novels - for example, Arthur C. Clarke's "A Fall of Moondust" - where the film rights have been sold many times, but the films are never made and so the author in effect gets money for nothing, over and over.

New Line have been sued before in relation to the Lord of the Rings and lost both times. Once to Peter Jackson, and once to Saul Zaentz who owned the LOTR rights before New Line acquired them.

There is also a possibility that, even if the Estate wins, the judge may decide that the rights to LOTR and The Hobbit are two separate things (even though they were sold as a package) and rule that only the LOTR rights revert to the Estate - not The Hobbit rights. Also, the Estate might win but only receive financial compensation.

Mithalwen · 08-11-2009, 11:28 AM

Thanks PotH that is a better article all round.

I never said that a writer can't control a film, and I can imagine that the late Mr Crichton was better placed than most to negotiate contracts to his satisfaction,

but it isn't that common. If the film rights reverted, well things could certainly get interesting.

I had wondered for a while if the film rights were sold "freehold". Seems barmy that they could be open ended while the author's copyright is limited. So thanks for that insight..

08-01-2009, 01:38 PM	#3
Mithalwen Pilgrim Soul Join Date: May 2004 Location: watching the wonga-wonga birds circle... Posts: 9,461	No they wouldn't. Authors almost never have any clout over what film makers do with their works when the rights have been sold .... a notable exception being JK Rowling who had the advantage of not having completed the series at the start of filming and could say you can't do x because it compromises something in a later book. If you want a contemporary example, look at "My sister's keeper" . Despite probably paying a substantial amount for a work by a bestselling author, Warner Bros decided to turn an intelligent story with serious issues and a twist in the tale in to a routine tearjerker by changing the ending which somewhat missed the whole point of the book. Jodi Picoult has explicitly said on her website that it was completely out of her control and all complaints should be directed at the film makers. Being extremely grateful that CT has spent decades of his life bringing so much of his father's writing to mass audience, I am glad that he wasn't obliged to spend any time on an entreprise he had no interest in. I can only imagine that he, more than anyone, can see Middle Earth in his mind's eye and has no need of film makers to realise it for him. May he spend what years are left to him in his own amusement... Maybe I should dig up the old threads since WCH being both a lawyer and a and correspondent of Christopher Tolkien made a number of well informed posts... Last edited by Mithalwen; 08-03-2009 at 10:27 AM. Reason: typos

08-07-2009, 10:37 AM	#5
Mithalwen Pilgrim Soul Join Date: May 2004 Location: watching the wonga-wonga birds circle... Posts: 9,461	I can't find it online but there was an article today in the Telegraph. Got CT's age wrong and said he was a virtual recluse and made it seem that the Trust only gives to causes linked to the works (eg Archive). Other than that it was fairly neutral. Nevertheless these occasions when you happen to know they are wrong always makes you wonder about everything else they report... Last edited by Mithalwen; 08-11-2009 at 11:12 AM. Reason: sp

08-09-2009, 05:06 AM	#6
PrinceOfTheHalflings Wight Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 120	Try this article instead: http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/hea..._of_film_cash/ No talk of CT being a recluse and also a picture of Priscilla. Priscilla is quoted as saying they don't want to shut the film down but do want to take it away from New Line. To address an earlier point - how much control a writer has over a film - it all depends on what is negotiated when the film rights are sold. If you think a writer can't control a film then you haven't met Michael Crichton! If the Estate does get the film rights back then they ARE in a position to dictate terms. Something to bear in mind is that in many cases nowadays film rights are not sold permanently - instead they have a "use it or lose it" clause. In other words, what is sold is not the right to make a film "some time in the future", but rather an "option" to make a film during a specified timeframe (often as little as 18 months). If production of the film does not begin within that timeframe then the rights revert to the author who is then free to negotiate a new movie deal. Obviously this wasn't the kind of deal that Tolkien signed, but if the rights revert back to the Estate then it would be in their interest to do this kind of deal in future. This is good sense, as over 90% of movies never make it from the concept stage to actual production. I know of several novels - for example, Arthur C. Clarke's "A Fall of Moondust" - where the film rights have been sold many times, but the films are never made and so the author in effect gets money for nothing, over and over. New Line have been sued before in relation to the Lord of the Rings and lost both times. Once to Peter Jackson, and once to Saul Zaentz who owned the LOTR rights before New Line acquired them. There is also a possibility that, even if the Estate wins, the judge may decide that the rights to LOTR and The Hobbit are two separate things (even though they were sold as a package) and rule that only the LOTR rights revert to the Estate - not The Hobbit rights. Also, the Estate might win but only receive financial compensation. Last edited by PrinceOfTheHalflings; 08-09-2009 at 05:47 AM.

08-11-2009, 11:28 AM	#7
Mithalwen Pilgrim Soul Join Date: May 2004 Location: watching the wonga-wonga birds circle... Posts: 9,461	Thanks PotH that is a better article all round. I never said that a writer can't control a film, and I can imagine that the late Mr Crichton was better placed than most to negotiate contracts to his satisfaction, but it isn't that common. If the film rights reverted, well things could certainly get interesting. I had wondered for a while if the film rights were sold "freehold". Seems barmy that they could be open ended while the author's copyright is limited. So thanks for that insight..