Inching closer to The Hobbit film

[Groin Redbeard]

The Hobbit WILL BE a two part film - but here is the new information - the second film will be influenced by the foundation of "The Silmarillion" and "The History of Middle-earth Series" (which is a 12 part series of books where JRR's son, Christopher Tolkien analyses JRR's old manuscripts; the manuscripts that ultimately led to become "The Silmarillion", "Lord of the Rings" and "Númenor" which is sort of like Atlantis).

I'm not so surre I like the idea of having the Hobbit as a two part film. I'd like it better if PJ just stuck to the book.

[Sauron the White]

William - I see it as contradictory and two-faced that they can maintain the false illusion of two differing positions. One for public consumption which seemingly attempts to take the high road of indifference while the other is far more honest and critical.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

William - I see it as contradictory and two-faced that they can maintain the false illusion of two differing positions. One for public consumption which seemingly attempts to take the high road of indifference while the other is far more honest and critical.

I honestly don't see why you have to put such a spin on it. The position of the Estate, & of CT himself, is that they have no official comment to make re the movies. At the same time its obvious that if CT, Adam, Priscilla, or any other member of the Family/Estate have seen the movies they will have formed a personal opinion on them. I don't see this as either being two faced, hypocritical or anything else.

What you seem to miss is that the Tolkien Estate is a very different thing to Christopher Tolkien, & a STATEMENT by the Estate criticising or praising the movies is not going to be forthcoming, as that is not their job. Bottom line is the Estate have nothing at all to do with the movies & have chosen to keep their distance from them. If CT, having seen the movies, decides the whole thing was a wasted opportunity & made a pig's ear out of a silk purse then he's entitled to his personal opinion.

I wasn't aware until Mr Hicklin's comments that CT had even seen the movies, or what his opinion of them was. All I can say is, I'm really not surprised he doesn't like them ...I would be interested to know his opinion of the BBC radio adaptation.

[Nazgûl-king]

It's cool that Peter Jackson's back, even if he is producing it. I wonder what they mean by two films, there is only one book. I don’t know how they are going to get enough material for two films, though if they do have two films they should certainly be able to get just about everything from the book in plus a little extra.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

So the Tolkiens have a negative opinion, and choose not to broadcast it. Is that not their right? 'Two-faced and contradictory' would be an applicable charge if the Estate were to have publicly praised or endorsed the films, while privately loathing them: but this they have not done.

"No comment" doesn't contradict anything.

[Sauron the White]

WCH - "No comment" indeed contradicts nothing. Unless of course there are other pronouncements, statements or actions which say otherwise. Which goes back to my original question as to what supports your statement that the last people in the world CT would work with would be Jackson and New Line. And you seemed to indicate this is much more than a mere suspicion or deduction that you hold true.

davem - everyone, including CT and his family and Estate partners, have a right to their opinion. That is fine. I do think it is less than honest for someone to take one position on an issue where they maintain the high road due to their official capacity in an organization and then take a far different position and claim it is only the feelings of a single individual and means nothing. Lets face it and be frank about this. Is there any single person alive who is more the face and power behindThe Tolkien Estate than Christopher Tolkien?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

"No comment" indeed contradicts nothing. Unless of course there is other pronouncements, statements or actions which say otherwise.

"No comment" contradicts nothing, including other comments. It's just a way of saying "whatever I may think, I'm not telling you." As a lawyer, my telling a reporter "no comment' doesn't mean I have no opinion about the case!

If your spouse/significant other puts on what you deem to be an absolutely hideous outfit, it's not 'contradictory or two-faced' to keep your mouth shut and avoid a night on the sofa.


"No comment" certainly isn't some sort of declaration along the lines of "I promise not to form a personal opinion about the movies when they come out."

I do think it is less than honest for someone to take one position on an issue where they maintain the high road due to their official capacity in an organization and then take a far different position and claim it is only the feelings of a single individual and means nothing.

Your argument would have force only if the Estate/Tolkien family had done some such thing. In fact, their personal and private opinions have remained private. Moreover, you again assert that there are 'far different' positions involved here: which is, in your phrase, comparing apples to cinderblocks when one 'position' is mere silence. Nothing in CRT's public statements declares or implies "I'm completely indifferent." Just "I'm not talking."

[Sauron the White]

WCH - Is Christopher Tolkien a private person in the same way that you or I are? Can someone of the stature and fame of CT ever be a private person? I do not feel it is possible for someone of that stature to become a private person when they feel it is convenient for them to do so.

There are issues here which are never discussed by folks like yourself. For example.... why did the Estate willingly participate in the promotion of the movie through reissues of the books with cover tie-ins with the films in return for higher than normal royalty payments? How do you willingly participate in that, cash the checks from the revenues which were four to five times higher than in non-film years, and then engage in comments against the hand that is helping to feed you?

How do you sit at the head of the Estate, perhaps wielding enough power to be the Estate itself for all practical purposes, and take one position of "we have nothing to say about the movies" and then conveniently put on the uniform of the private person and engage in letter writings, conversations with people like yourself and others saying negative things about the movies? Especially when you have a very reasonable expectation that many of the feelings you expressed as a private person will somehow filter back in places just like this forum making your true feelings known to your hardcore fan base?

Yes, you sometimes try to take the high road of non-involvement but in actuality are taking a side which has been well known. But your hypocritical position then gives cover to your hardcover true believers who can then post in places like this and claim with a straight face that there is no position pro or con on the movies from CT and the Estate?

I think that is less than honest and straight forward. Just like I have repeatedly stated that the selling of COH as a "new book" was less than honest and straight forward as well.

[Mithalwen]

Personally I would say that yes Christopher Tolkien is a private person in the same way as I am. In fact he is more of a private person than I am since I choose to voice my opinions in public fora and he does not. He has never been a public person other than in the way that any academic who lectures is public.

Why you seem to expect him to be grateful to Jackson I don't know. If he was interested in the money there were far more lucrative ways off exploiting his father's works than slaving away for 20 years. And LOTR was voted book of the century several years before the films came out. You behaveas if noone had heard or bought the books before the film. It was hardly and original screen play or a little known work. Jackson was quite happy to take advantage of the huge existing fan base and insult them.....

I very much doubt he had the power to stop tie in editions being made. I bought mine cos I needed a new set at a knock down price at a supermarket so I doubt that greatly supplemented CT's pension. As for the allegation that CoH was sold as a new book - that really doesn't stand up. the origins are quite clear in every serious article I have seen. And if you don't happen to know the origins it is going to be new...... nouvel but not neuf.. English unlike French does not make the distinction between brand new and new to you.

The Tolkien Trust has donated the incidental revenue from the film to charity. If this is hypocritical then I can only hope that in similar circumstances I would be as good a hypocrite.