Boyens did state in the commentary track to TT:
Now, to reduce Faramir's conversation with Frodo to 'joshing' & say that his behaviour 'doesn't work dramatically' shows a complete misunderstanding of the incident. Obviously what she has done is scan the text rather than read it, purely in order to knock up a script. Plainly Faramir's statement comes as a result of long, hard thought & reflects a moral choice, & is as far from 'joshing' as its possible to get. If Boyens doesn''t get that she's just thick. The only reason it might have failed in the movie is that they basically cut all of Faramir's explanation of why he would reject it, his dreams & clear statements of what motivates him in favour of a load of invented tosh which added nothing to the story.

So, it certainly seems that Boyens thinks she has improved on Tolkien's work ....

Haha the only references to it I found were from this forum and a couple of other ones. Edit: And a reviewer who also doesn't state his source. An internet myth methinks.

Still awaiting the exact source of that stinging Jackson boast. All of my DVD's are at the ready to be thrown into the trash heap along with all the movie memorabillia, film books, and anything that even has to do with New Zealand.

Galendor here is that exact quote that William Cloud Hicklin attributed to Peter Jackson:

Mr. Hicklin is a very intelligent man who is also an attorney. He also is very knowledgable about the print world of JRRT and Middle-earth. As such, he has a great appreciation for the importance of each and every word in a sentence and would not use any foolishly nor post anything so damaging that he was not totally sure about. I am sure that if he posted it, he either has it memorized including the 100% reliable source he obtained it from or has it directly in front of him along with the source that can be easilly double checked.

Elmo - it is sometimes difficult to find an exact quote on the net. I have every confidence that Mr. Hicklin is soon to post with the exact source of that Jackson quote and then you can double check its authenticity.

Merry Christmas to all.

I am of the same opinion as Elmo: that this 'quote' of PJ is a myth. I can imagine Phillipa Boyens saying something like that, but not PJ. At least not in those exact words. Maybe something like 'Tolkien's narrative was somewhat slow-paced and plodding'(which wouldn't be wholly incorrect).

If Peter really had that little respect for the books, he wouldn't have gone to such great lenghts to adapt them and the Hobbit.

I've seen the exact quote on a few websites, including various fora, but I've never seen the original source/interview. Would be nice to know where it came from. Don't know if he actually said it, but it would explain the approach he took to filming the books better than the old nonsense about 'movies are different to books'. I'll keep an open mind.....

from davem

Old nonsense? Old nonsense!!!! Books and movies are two different mediums. Books and movies are two different art forms. I know nobody who would actually claim that they are the same. Do you?

I've checked several permutations of the quote using Google and Yahoo search engines, using quotation marks versus not. I still haven't found a verifiable "original source" for it. But internet search engines aren't the final word on anything.

At this point, I doubt he said it, but then again I wouldn't be surprised either. If he did say this thing, even if drunk on spirits or riding high on critic-adulation, it would be such a crass statement that it would sorely influence my opinion of his character and motives. I might also throw away my movie box sets. I will wait to see if WCH knows any reputable source. I ordered the ROTK Platinum Edition movie, when it comes I might (shudder) watch all of the "bonus commentary" to see if Jackson et al. utter any such blasphemy therein.

It remains possible that he "respected the books" for their popularity and apparent money-making potential, and not their literary merit. He did go to great lengths, but with millions of dollars to finance those lengths. Making movies is his vocation, appreciating the quality of fiction writing may not be his avocation.

I sincerely doubt that. Fantasy movies weren't such money makers before LOTR and Peter had a lot of trouble trying to get anyone to invest money in them.
Also, if that were true Peter would have accepted Bob Shaye's offer to direct only one LOTR film. But he declined and decided that he couldn't be involved in it as it'd be a travesty. So Bob Shaye decided to hand over the one film project to another director: unless PJ found another financier.

It wasn't easy to get those millions, you know. And you would have to appreciate the source material in order to go to such lenghts to adapt it.

After much searching, I have to acknowledge that in its many appearences on the Internet, the alleged quote from PJ is never sourced. This of course is not affirmative evidence of its non-existence, since many print interviews never reach e-form; but without a traceable source I'll have to withdraw it.

However, the DVD 'extras' fairly drip with this attitude, if not stated so bluntly: time after time PBW go on and on about how X or Y 'doesn't work' or how the 'story arc' requires that a refuge (a characteristic element in Tolkien) must be converted into an obstacle, or how they just needed to stick in a fight to juice things up.

from Galendor

Well it has been a couple of days now and Mr. Hicklin has posted in Movies in other threads so there was opportunity to post his original source. None has been forthcoming.

I wonder why anyone would intentionally put forth a falsehood which can be so damaging to a persons reputation?

Wait - here is the answer. Galendor says that such a statement would "sorely influence my opinion of his character and motives" and further he may even "throw away my movie box sets". It very well could be that statements such as the one posted about Mr. Jackson are part of a campaign to throw mud on the name of an otherwise innocent person who did not say those words. In fact, every statement we have from Mr. Jackson regarding JRRT and his works is glowingly positive and supportive and respectful.

- if only the movies had been....

I have seen that 'quote' used a number of times, but never seen any attribution.

I suspect that it is a misquote of something like: "There are parts of Tolkien's tale which we felt would not work well on screen, so we made changes based upon what we felt would work better in the visual medium". That, of course is not a direct quote, but represents the approach which appears to hae been adopted by Jackson, Walsh and Boyens. And I can fully understand why, given the different nature of the two media.

I do not believe that Jackson has ever said anything derogatory of the books, at least publicly, and I would be surprised if he had any negative feelings towards them. As far as I am aware, he has expressed only praise for Tolkien and his works, most notably in his Oscar acceptance speech, when he paid tribute to the man.

After that long and intolerable detour...
 

...perhaps we can get back to the subject matter -- what can or could or should be in the "intertestamental" movie?

My thoughts exactly. I seem to have fallen prey to the 'off-topic syndrome' myself. Why has this become the norm for this forum? If you want to discuss Peter Jackson's quotes, start a new thread, damnit!

Now, I believe I suggested a movie about the fall of the North Kingdom with Liam Neesson as Arvedui and Max Von Sydow playing Malbeth the Seer. Anybody have a better suggestion?

Thank you for searching, I appreciate your effort. No harm, no foul.

from WCH regarding the damaging Jackson "quote"

Very good and thank you. Reminds me of a line from the old Simon & Garfunkel song "The Boxer

" a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

This whole flap is an excellent illustration for the need of checks and balances, viewpoints from a variety of perspectives. People engaged in preaching to the choir rarely are challenged to produce sources. This is a good thing.

oh - how does one prove that something does not exist?

As I've said before, can't somebody create a new thread to discuss the matter of the quote? I'm surprised this thread hasn't been locked yet, considering that over half the posts are off-topic.

zxcvbn
your frustration is understandable, but in the end, lots of discussion here comes down to the pro vs. anti film discussion coloring nearly every other issue. You just have to roll with the punches my friend...;)

As to this, while some time sequencesc ould be a bit off
(which I doubt would bother PJ and Friends) th second
could start with Gandalf narration connecting TH with
the White Council attack on Dol Guldur after a debate
by the Counci. By aging Aragorn about 10 years from his
actual 10 years old at the time you could have him lead
the Dunedain assisting the attack and set up his first
tryst with Arwen. I don't have the appendix with me at the
moment. Would Theoden have been around then? One
might imagine elements of the Rohirrim either joining
in the attack or joining in while on a scouting expedition
west of the Anduin. And you could later have Aragorn's
journeys in Rohan and Gondor included (more battles for PJ :eek: ).

It really doesn't matter what is 'included' in the bridge film: it can never be anything other than fanfic. This is not remotely the same as taking a full novel and condensing it to a screen runtime, where all the detail is present and much of it has to be chucked overboard, but rather the expansion of a handful of staccato entries in the Tale of Years with synthetic filler: rather like silicone-pumping a pair of A-cups to Dolly Parton size.

Moderator's note
 

"Off-topic" as defined on this forum means "not Tolkien-related". A thread may change in emphasis during the process of discussion - in fact, some of the best discussions of days long gone by took place on threads which originally started off differently. As long as a diversion is pertinent to Tolkien's works and stays away from hostile arguments and personal insults, it won't be closed by the moderators or administrators.

If members object to straying away from the original subject, they are welcome to post something that will get the discussion back on track. :) Anyone can start a new thread with a diverging topic to keep that discussion separate, and if you asks nicely ;) we are perfectly willing to merge, split or move threads and posts. If that involves posts by others, please do get their permission before asking.

From the wise Mr. Hicklin

I do not really care how the product if put together but how it looks in the end.

The Hobbit sequel: What will it contain?
 

Link:
http://www.wildbluffmedia.com/2007/1...-and-a-sequel/

So apparently there will be two movies filmed simultaneously. The first will cover the full storyline in the Hobbit. The second will bridge the 60 year gap between TH and the beginning of LoTR.

I'm a bit surprised about this choice; I'd have though there were other parts of JRRTs works that would make a better movie. Not so sure what actually happened during this time. Not much drama that I can remember. Would be cool perhaps to see an incarnate Sauron return to Barad Dur (as opposed to that silly red eye), and the White Counsil's attack on Dol Guldur.

The though of the scriptwriters being a given free reign to make up much of the storyline worries me a bit.

Still, two movies are better than one I suppose.

So what do you think this movie will contain?

And what would you like it to contain?

I think they will included the Dol Guldor storyline with The Hobbit, as for the in-between thing maybe it could show the Angmar storyline that is featured in the appendices.

Could someone help me list what is written about these 60 years between TH and LoTR? This is what I can remember:

The Hobbits drink their ale and plow their earth.

The elves remember the good old days.

Balin goes to Moria and have himself killed.

Gollum goes to Mordor and is caught by Sauron, who's just returned.

He's then caught by Aragorn who is quite busy during this time.

What else?

You're forgetting the famous expedition of Drogo Baggins into Far Harad to catch the gigantic gorilla which subsequently ran amok in Minas Tirith & then fell to its death from the Tower of Ecthelion. That should take up a good three hours of screentime...

Er.....actually I'd like to see that one......

^I'd like to see Aragorn cursing his ill fate of falling for an almost unattainable elven princess in his youth.

After all, despite his noble lineage and rugged hunkyness he's very likely to be an 80-year old virgin in LoTR. In high elven culture (which Aragorn is brought up into) marriage is consumated by the union of love, and an elf can see in someone's eye's whether he/she already has a mate.

In Rivendell:

Arwen: "Is so nice talking to you, my love. Meet me again tomorrow and we'll talk again."

Aragorn: "Right. Let's talk again tomorrow. But now I'm going for a a cold shower under a waterfall of icy meltwater from the mountains."

Skip spence: re your query: "Could someone help me list what is written about these 60 years between TH and LoTR?"

This is from the tale of the years:So plenty to work on. from the above I would like to see:

Gollum searching for the Ring
the rebuilding of Barad-dur
Nazgul occupying Dol Guldur
Elrond explaining aragorn's ancestry
the White Council (and bits form the unfinished tales can be used here)
saruman off to isengard
aragorn / gandalf friendship
frodo born
aragorn / arwen and all it entails!
gollum meets shelob!!
balin - moria - (fights no doubt!) and destruction of the colony
saruman ensared by sauron in the palantir
rangers begin guard of shire

enough for a couple of hours I rekcon!

they could also be a little bit artisitic with the timings and show some form of attack on dol guldur (and retreat by sauron) wich technically takes place during the Hobbit timeline I suppose

Interesting. I'd forgotten how much could be
made of pre-Bilbo Gollum.

I thought they wouldn't be allowed bits from UT ubless Chris Tolkien gave them special permission like the Wormtongue-Nazgul bit in the radio version. And I somehow doubt that'll happen.

They can't use UT; in fact, they cannot use part of the LotR appendices either (those parts that deal with events in the 1st and 2nd age, and which are covered in the Silmarillion). I had read once the complete deal negotiated between Saul Zaentz Co. and Tolkien; unfortunately, I can't find the reference any longer. Technically speaking, the film rights are for The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, and those parts of the Appendices which don't infringe on Tolkien's other published (or at the time of the deal, unpublished) materials.

Therefore, the Tale of Years from the LotR appendix dating from the 3rd Age should be covered under the film rights.

from Morthoron

That opinion goes against every single thing I have ever heard - including long debates on this site - about what rights Zaentz purchased. My understanding is that he bought cover to cover rights with nothing exempted. That would include the Appendicies as written but no more.

I would point out that the film rights were sold BEFORE the publishing of the SIL.

If you have factual documentation to support this new, far more restrictive viewpoint, I would love to read it.

I have a recording of Raynor Unwin (Tolkien's publisher & very close friend) at the launch of Unfinished Tales in 1981 in which he states that the reason Tolkien struggled so much with the Appendices to LotR was that he effectively had to 'compress' the whole of the Silmarillion into them. Hence, one could argue that parts of Appendix A & B represent yet another version of the 'Silmarillion' - in fact, one could push it & take the words of Sam & Frodo on the stairs, that they are both part of the story of Beren & Luthien & the Silmaril to claim that what Tolkien actually sold the rights to was a small section of the Legendarium as a whole & that he (or his estate) is obligated to let them have the whole thing, because the Silmarillion is effectively part of LotR (or vice versa) - in fact Tolkien struggled for a long time to get the two works published together, as he felt that LotR could not be understood without a knowledge of the Silmarillion...

And certainly I think its pretty much beyond argument that he would have sold the film rights to the Sil writings when he sold the Hobbit & LotR rights - if anyone had wanted them.

Another interesting comment from Tolkien himself - Humphrey Carpenter related that when he went to see Tolkien to ask him if it was all right to put on a production of the Hobbit at a local school Tolkien told him he thought it was a very sill idea, but who was he (Tolkien) to stop him? He even suggested tunes for the songs (which mostly took the form of Gregorian Chant & which Carpenter decided was hardly right for a prep school production), & went along to see the performance, critiquing it severely at the end (while drinking all the wine from Carpenter's glass...).

In the end, I think its clear that Tolkien's attitude to dramatisation of his work came down to a conviction that the whole idea was 'silly' & bound to fail miserably, but (as long as he was asked for permission & received proper remuneration) it was fine with him.

From personal experience, I can say that there is certainly a delineation point within the appendices -- only I am not quite sure where that exactly is contextually. I am waiting for a call back from one of the senior developers of Lord of the Rings Online (the online Middle-earth MMORPG, current subscriber base approx 300-400k). Lord of the Rings Online has the exclusive contract for the online gaming segment of The Hobbit and LotR proprietary rights owned by Tolkien Enterprises (aka Saul Zaentz Co.).

Having been involved in the game through the alpha and beta processes (and previously while the game was still in design), I can tell you that there are certain things the game cannot show or discuss, including anything dealing with 1st Age Middle-earth in the appendices; however, if there is a mention of a 1st Age name or place within the actual text of either The Hobbit or LotR, then said reference is allowed. For instance, Aragorn referring to Beren and Luthien is allowed because it is in the actual text, but the term 'Valar' or 'Maiar' is not because there is no mention directly in the text. Anything that predates a 3rd Age reference within the game must be passed by Tolkien Enterprises to assure they remain within their rights.

I will offer an update as soon as I hear more.

That is a great spot to be in. Sounds like a great job.

One thing that I am not clear about. The game is licensed by Saul Zaentz through rights he has purchased from UA decades ago. Even if the license the game people have prohibit the mention of certain First and Second Age things, why would that necesarrily mean that the rights Zaentz posesses would limit him in the same way? It could simply mean that Zaentz wants to limit the scope of rights to others and he himself is not under the same limitations.

Or the limitations placed on the games license could simply be to limit the scope of content to events already in the films and Zaentz or New Line does not want new ground covered if they themselves have not yet done it.

All this is theory of course.

It was not a job, it was a misadventure. Actually, I was offered a position as a Tolkien quest-writer in-game by Turbine (the company that produces Lord of the Rings Online); however, I declined as it would have moved me to another state and would have only been a temporary position in any case. I suppose I might have jumped on it if I were younger and without a family, but that was not in the equation.

In addition, I got physically ill at the lore atrocities evident in every fiber of the game, and have not played since prior to the game's official release due to mental health considerations (thus retaining what little sanity I still have).

Okay here are the licensing commandments as I now understand them:

1) If references appear only in the Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit, thou shalt use them.

2) If references appear in both the actual text of LotR and TH, and in The Silmarillion (or other Tolkien publication controlled by the Tolkien Family Trust, such as UT or HoMe), thou shalt use them.

3) If references appear in The Silmarillion or other Tolkien publication, but not in LotR or TH, thou shalt not use them.

4) If references appear in the LotR Appendices, but not in The Silmarillion or other Tolkien publication, thou shalt use them.

5) If references appear in the LotR Appendices, and in The Silmarillion or other Tolkien publication, but do not appear in the actual text of LotR or TH, thou shalt not use them.

Again, as you pointed out Mr. White, this may merely be a measure of control Tolkien Enterprises has exerted on the users of the gaming license (in this case Turbine, but also Electronic Arts, which controls the X-Box and PSP gaming license); however, as litigious as the Tolkien Family Trust is known to be (as you know, they are currently suing Newline... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/bu...vie.html?fta=y), it is perhaps wise on Tolkien Ent's part to ensure that there is not the slightest hint of impropriety in their handling of their licenses in regards to the exclusive rights Tolkien Family Trust exerts over what remains of Tolkien's legacy. Or, perhaps more to the point, they are limited by copyright law against using references to The Silmarillion (unless specified) within their license.

After all, even though Tolkien Enterprise's licensing rights are granted in perpetuity, they can be revoked by the courts (which I am sure would please Christopher Tolkien, and be the crowning achievement of his curmudgeonly struggle for control of his father's legacy).

P.S. It is interesting to note that Games Workshops PLC is the only company currently that holds permissions from both Tolkien Enterprises and the Tolkien Family Trust to merchandise products. The permissions granted by the Tolkien Family Trust is limited to one single product: the game figurines of Khamûl the Easterling (as you know, the name Khamûl does not appear in the text of LotR of The Hobbit).

Rubbish.