Quote:
Originally Posted by Sauron the White
See, there you go. Making authoritave statements when there clearly is a difference of opinion about what even constitutes "SIlmarillion material". I would remind you that the word Silmarallion was used by JRRT in the Appendicies to LOTR where he described many events of the First and Second Ages. That material from LOTR is owned as film rights by Saul Zaentz and New Line Cinema.
And yet some people think there is nothing to work out? Please.
|
The rights to
The Lord of the Rings (including the appendices) and
The Hobbit are separate from the rights to
The Silmarillion. [By which I mean the book published under that title in 1977, okay?]
That doesn't mean that New Line won't try and get permission to use material from
The Silmarillion in their upcoming movies– but that has nothing to do with the use of the
word "Silmarillion" in Appendix A of
The Lord of the Rings.
When people talk about
The Silmarillion, they are, by default, talking about the published book, not the synopses of some of the events included in Appendix A. (Anyway, Tolkien didn't call Appendix A
The Silmarillion, either.)
Surely you understand the difference?