Film Rights to First & Second Age

[davem]

Tolkien sold the rights to TH & LOTR & that's all. Sorry - in a way I wish you were right, so that Jackson & New Line could churn out a few more trashy Middle-earth movies, make the money they so desperately need & then, in a few years, we could forget all about movie versions & just get back to the books.

The constant demands of movie fans (most of whom would freak out so badly if you actually handed them one of Tolkien's books to read that their brains would turn to jello & leak out of their ears) for a Hobbit movie & a Turin movie & a Beren & Luthien movie & a Gondolin movie & a (fill in the blank) movie get increasingly depressing.

I'm now so bored by these constant demands for more Middle-earth movies that I can't even summon up the energy to

[zxcvbn]

Originally Posted by davem

Tolkien sold the rights to TH & LOTR & that's all. Sorry - in a way I wish you were right, so that Jackson & New Line could churn out a few more trashy Middle-earth movies, make the money they so desperately need & then, in a few years, we could forget all about movie versions & just get back to the books.

Is this a joke post?

Originally Posted by davem

The constant demands of movie fans (most of whom would freak out so badly if you actually handed them one of Tolkien's books to read that their brains would turn to jello & leak out of their ears)

My, my. What an accurate opinion you seem to have about non-purists. This kind of snobbishness is exactly what I dislike about purists. One does not have to be a purist in order to have read the books well(I've read them all multiple times and so far I haven't found any jello in my ears, thank you), and being a purist doesn't elevate you to a higher plane of existence so that you can judge others as you like.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by davem

I'm now so bored by these constant demands for more Middle-earth movies that I can't even summon up the energy to

To what, reply? Then don't.

[Sauron the White]

davem -- it is your knowledge of Tolkien that I respect more than almost any other on this site. In your post you dismissed my ideas saying

Tolkien sold the rights to TH & LOTR & that's all. Sorry

And are not the Appendicies with its clear and unmistakable mention of The Silmarallion and events part of LOTR?

While I do not have access to the original sales contracts between JRRT and the film company - UA I think - I imagine it included all pages of LOTR which would be inclusive of the Appendicies. And that includes lots of material from the First and Second Age as well as much Third Age material not in the body of either THE HOBBIT or LOTR itself. Is it your opinion that the currents rights holder does not legally hold those rights from the Appendicies? And what legally would you base that view on if it is your opinion?

[The Might]

Now, now, zxcvbn everyone is entitled to their opinion and there is no need to be rude.
I don't see this as snobbish, as I am myself aware of many people around me that like LotR, but really know nothing of what is behind it and just go like:
"Wow, cool CGI!"

Now these I really can't call LotR fans, but only LotR film fans, so I believe we must make a distinction here.

As far as what each group wishes it is clear. The film fans all want more films, and as for the ones that also enjoy Tolkien's universe the opinions differ.
I mean, I for one would like to see another movie of LotR, because I personally find them ok. Of course they are not the books, but when I think of many of the good scenes I am happy they were made.

[Sauron the White]

from davem

They have a right to use the word 'Silmarillion' in any future adaptation, to mention that The Silmarillion exists, but they don't have the right to use any material not included between the covers of TH & LotR. There is a great deal of material they could use in there, but nothing that isn't in there.

Yes, I understand that is the popular and conventional wisdom. And it is close what I believed for a long time now. However, why could it not be said, as part of a legal argument, that Christopher Tolkiens efforts to publish and copyright THE SILMARALLION had the effect of diminishing or restricting the rights that his father had already sold?

I am reminded that the very popular Christmas film, ITS A WONDERFUL LIFE, was first published as a simple Christmas card. The movie rights to it were sold for $10,000. Could the author then write a novelization of the Christmas card, copyright it, and claim that any such film could not be made from it even though the rights had already been sold?

I am not an attorney. But I do think this is a very tricky situation that goes much further than the conventional wisdom that has been around regarding what could be used and what could not be used regarding THE SILMARALLION.

I really think nobody knows for sure and it would take either one huge court case or mutual consent and cooperation for it to be decided. Two weeks ago I floated the idea of cooperation here and it seemed to fall on deaf or protesting ears. Maybe that leaves only one option... and that would be the worst one available.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

from davem
Yes, I understand that is the popular and conventional wisdom. And it is close what I believed for a long time now. However, why could it not be said, as part of a legal argument, that Christopher Tolkiens efforts to publish and copyright THE SILMARALLION had the effect of diminishing or restricting the rights that his father had already sold?

If it wasn't for Christopher the Silmarillion would be nothing more than a collection of mouldering papers. And in his will Tolkien left CT absolute control over all his unpublished writings. That CT took those writings & produced something that did not exist up to that point (ie The Silmarillion in a publishable form) gives him absolute legal right over it.

Or could you suggest how New Line, Jackson or Zaentz could have used that material before it was brought together by CT, when according to Tolkien's will no-one but CT had any right to it?

[davem]

Might be useful to have the section from Tolkien's will cited here:

’Upon Trust to allow my son Christopher full access to the same* in order that he may act as my Literary Executor with full power to publish edit alter rewrite or complete any work of mine which may be unpublished at my death or to destroy the whole or any part or parts of any such unpublished works as he in his absolute discretion may think fit and subject thereto’

*unpublished works

[davem]

Originally Posted by zxcvbn

Is this a joke post?

No, it was meant to ironic.

My, my. What an accurate opinion you seem to have about non-purists. This kind of snobbishness is exactly what I dislike about purists. One does not have to be a purist in order to have read the books well(I've read them all multiple times and so far I haven't found any jello in my ears, thank you), and being a purist doesn't elevate you to a higher plane of existence so that you can judge others as you like.

I'm sorry, I was posting a response to StW, part of a long running argument between us on the quality (or lack thereof) of the LotR movies & whether there should be any similar fiascos in future.

I am, of course, pleased to hear that you have read the books.

Originally Posted by StW

And are not the Appendicies with its clear and unmistakable mention of The Silmarallion and events part of LOTR?

While I do not have access to the original sales contracts between JRRT and the film company - UA I think - I imagine it included all pages of LOTR which would be inclusive of the Appendicies. And that includes lots of material from the First and Second Age as well as much Third Age material not in the body of either THE HOBBIT or LOTR itself. Is it your opinion that the currents rights holder does not legally hold those rights from the Appendicies? And what legally would you base that view on if it is your opinion?

They have a right to use the word 'Silmarillion' in any future adaptation, to mention that The Silmarillion exists, but they don't have the right to use any material not included between the covers of TH & LotR. There is a great deal of material they could use in there, but nothing that isn't in there.

BTW, if you want to know exactly what material is available to use in LotR you could ask zxcvbn - apparently he's read LotR numerous times.

[zxcvbn]

Originally Posted by davem

I'm sorry, I was posting a response to StW, part of a long running argument between us on the quality (or lack thereof) of the LotR movies & whether there should be any similar fiascos in future.

What I took offence to was you generalising the film lovers as people incapable of reading Tolkien Literature; it gave me the image of a self-proclaimed high-class fellow looking down on what he considered the unwashed masses.

Originally Posted by davem;539667BTW, if you want to know exactly what material is available to use in LotR you could ask [B

zxcvbn[/B] - apparently he's read LotR numerous times.

Glad to see you seem to value my knowledge; sadly I don't have anything more to add than what you've said.

Originally Posted by davem

They have a right to use the word 'Silmarillion' in any future adaptation, to mention that The Silmarillion exists, but they don't have the right to use any material not included between the covers of TH & LotR. There is a great deal of material they could use in there, but nothing that isn't in there.