Subject for the Second film?

[Sauron the White]

davem --- you make an excellent case for waiting the situation out. I would guess the cycle of the next two films would take up the five years or so that you mentioned in your post. It would also give the filmmakers and rights holders (since those rights should revert to Zaentz before that unless he works out an extension) time to gauge the success of both the HOBBIT film and the bridge film. If they take in the hoped for lotery prize of $2 billion US then serious consideration could commence about another return to Middle-earth.

I certainly cannot argue with your logic.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

However one can't exclude the possibility of the 'Bridge' film tanking. Part audience fatigue, but largely because I've seen no evidence at all that Jackson is capable of inventing remotely acceptable fan-fic: those portions of the LR trilogy which were any good were good as a direct function of the proportion of actual Tolkien therein. Conversely, those elements created out of whole cloth pretty uniformly sucked. I suspect that this 'bridge' movie will be as lame as Eragon.

PJ's name is not automatic boxoffice magic: vide King Kong.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

However one can't exclude the possibility of the 'Bridge' film tanking. Part audience fatigue, but largely because I've seen no evidence at all that Jackson is capable of inventing remotely acceptable fan-fic: those portions of the LR trilogy which were any good were good as a direct function of the proportion of actual Tolkien therein. Conversely, those elements created out of whole cloth pretty uniformly sucked. I suspect that this 'bridge' movie will be as lame as Eragon.

PJ's name is not automatic boxoffice magic: vide King Kong.

You're right, this 'bridge' film is very risky indeed. Much of the audience of LotR will have been made up with people who couldn't/wouldn't read the books ("Long buks iz 2 ard 4 uz 2day" or "I haven't got time to read Tolkien. Reading long books cuts into my time watching four hours of soaps a day" and all that). That may hold up a little for The Hobbit but a lot of people won't be bothered by a bridging film if they know it's "all made up". And if Fran Walsh and Peter Jackson are involved with the script then I really don't hold out much hope as they are not good at creating narrative, and that's what holds any story, whether written or visual, together.

Of course they could just go for something which was just an "Art" film, which would negate the need for a narrative structure

[William Cloud Hicklin]

PJ *did* have a 'Tolkien expert' on set. Many of them, starting with Philippa Boyens and going on through many or most of the nerds at Weta, and eventually including McKellen, who came late to the books but became a total convert.

That didn't matter. If PJ isn't interested in 'accuracy' the availability of expertise is irrelevant.

StW has pointed out that more people have seen the movies in five years than read the books in fifty. Sad, but true. I'm afraid that as a result Jackson's ego has grown in proportion. "Tolkien's tale was long and boring. I think I did better." Although he's a savvy enough businessman to appeal to/ appease the 'fans', at this point it's Peter Jackson fans rather than Tolkien fans: the monstrous success of the trilogy simply ratifies, in his mind, his self-indulgences. I expect were any 'expert' to be provided, PJ's attitude would be much the same as StW and others: "What the hell do you know about making movies?"

[zxcvbn]

i would like to point out that many of the radical changes in the plot can be credited to Fran Walsh and the 'Tolkien expert' Phillipa Boyens, who handled most of the script writing. And as much as I like the LOTR films, I hope Boyens is unable to collaborate on the Hobbit script and PJ gets his friend Steven Sinclair instead.

[Sauron the White]

I expect were any 'expert' to be provided, PJ's attitude would be much the same as StW and others: "What the hell do you know about making movies?"

That is certainly a very blunt way of putting it. And it could turn out that way. My take on this is yes, you can be a Tolkien expert and not know beans about the process of film and how they make them and what the demands are. That is undeniable. During the first trilogy of films, Jackson and company learned something about Middle-earth. They probably did not learn enough to make it perfect. But it looks like they learned enough to earn enough and please the public.

I would hope the second time around they could improve on that record and go a little further in making the films more authentic. People here seem to think that I apologize for everything Jackson did in the films and am ignorant of the books.
Not so. I have read them many many times since my first effort way back in 1971. I love those books. And I can watch the films and cringe at things like the scrubbing bubbles of the Dead and kicking the pathetic behind of Gollum or making jokes about bodily gasses. Believe me folks, I sure wish none of that were in there.

I do get tired of rehashing all the same tired disputes year after year. But I still engage in them. Just canot resist the lure of the ring I guess. It would be nice if this next batch of films did not repeat that pattern. Do any of us want to be doing this over and over again five and ten years from now? One way to prevent that and have something we all can be proud of would be to have an expert from the Estate in on the entire process to advise. It would help if that person had some experience in film and understood that its a lot more than just pointing out that "it did not happen that way in the books".

Right now the slate is clean and fresh and there is opportunity. Lets all hope that steps can be taken in the right direction.

[Lalwendë]

Sadly, being an uber-fan does not guarantee that you are the best person to add to or remove from Tolkien's text and create something new. Efforts by members of the Tolkien Society in re-writing are sometimes proof of that

I just hope for someone who understands narrative and plot.

[Galendor]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

"Tolkien's tale was long and boring. I think I did better."

Is this an actual quote from Peter Jackson? He said this?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Yes.

[Sauron the White]

...somehow, someway, I missed the source of that quote with your post.

[davem]

Adam Tolkien is not opposed to movies of his grandfather's works:

Alejandro Serrano: They say many things about a film (or two) based on The Hobbit. ¿this things are good for the books (many people could read them for the first time if they do a film, as happened with The Lord of the Rings) or they are damaging them?


Adam Tolkien: I would have to say that it will depend on the film! http://www.fantasymundo.com/articulo.php?articulo=439

And he can even joke about his father's opposition:

(It [CoH]might be compared to a sort of literary Director's Cut, the long version of the story assembled from all the best footage available, though my father probably wouldn't welcome the filmmaking comparison!) http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html/?docId=1000074611

And the publisher hasn't ruled out the possibility of selling the CoH rights.

"We all want this first and foremost to enjoy life as a book," said Brawn. "No one's saying never to a film (but) the film rights are reserved by the estate. We want to see what reaction it gets and then let it run its course." David Brawn, Director at Harper Collins

All of which proves precisely nothing. What we do know is that CT was annoyed by the Jackson movies & is unlikely to sell any further rights, but that Adam seems less antagonistic - he is perfectly prepared to wait & see how the Hobbit movies turn out.

My own feeling is that a decision on what happens to the movie rights may depend far more on what we see in 2010/11 than many think. If the movies are respectful & Jackson can avoid his worst excesses then maybe movie makers may have access to more than the synopsis in Appendix A.

[Galendor]

I think in naming both of the upcoming 2 movies the filmakers will want to "cash in" on the brand name recognition of "The Hobbit" - so I wonder what the name of the second proposed film will be (if the first is called The Hobbit)?

For The Lord of the Rings movies, name recognition no doubt played a huge role in getting people to buy tickets. For example, my wife has never read LOTR, but still recognized the name. Such name recognition in a way made the Lord of the Rings movies famous before they ever came out. The same would be true for a movie named "The Hobbit".

If movies were ever made based on the Silmarillion, I don't think using that name would have the same level of name recognition among the masses. New Line-Jackson probably would realize this, and if so wouldn't use that name for a movie.

Maybe they will just call all of their movies "The Lord of the Rings" as the primary title, with a smaller subtitle as they have done so far.

[Sauron the White]

from Galendor

Maybe they will just call all of their movies "The Lord of the Rings" as the primary title, with a smaller subtitle as they have done so far.

Are you saying that LOTR would be an overaching title like STAR WARS? If that is what you are suggesting it makes very good marketting sense but I imagine might be ripped by some since HOBBIT and the bridge film are not part of the storyline of LOTR. But I do like the idea and think it makes great sense as a way of unifying the Middle-earth pictures under one franchise name.

Is the name MIDDLE-EARTH somehow a possible franchise name with recognition and appeal?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Is the name MIDDLE-EARTH somehow a possible franchise name with recognition and appeal?

Oh, yeah. Iron Crown Enterprises sold a lot of titles under the name Middle-earth Roleplaying System (MERPS) before Zaentz yanked their license. Even in movie tie-in games, we get titles like "Battle for Middle-earth."

[William Cloud Hicklin]

What we do know is that CT was annoyed by the Jackson movies & is unlikely to sell any further rights,

CT's no-sale position long, long predated Peter Jackson. If it wasn't lifelong, then the Rankin-Bass Hobbit was surely enough to cause it!

Remember also that even assuming Adam replaces his father on the board, he's only one director out of three; and Baillie and Michael George are two decades younger than Christopher and so likely to be around for a while yet.

One might also want to parse some othe Adam T statements. Interviewed at the CoH launch:

Asked how he feels about the publicity his grandfather's work had generated over the years, he says it makes him "sad".

"Everyone talks about the brand, the franchise and the films," he says. "People obviously forget there's a man behind it, that he wrote it for his reasons and the books are wonderful.

"I'm certainly not unhappy about the success they've had, but it's a shame that it should become a brand. It's a work of art."

And from the Estae website (which is in fact Adam):

The Estate exists to defend the integrity of J.R.R. Tolkien’s writings. Christopher Tolkien's work as his father’s literary executor has always been to publish as faithfully and honestly as possible his father's completed and uncompleted works, without adaptation or embellishment.

Are there any plans to produce a feature film from The Children of Húrin ?
There are no plans of this nature in the foreseeable future.

[Galendor]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

from Galendor
Are you saying that LOTR would be an overaching title like STAR WARS?

Yes, that is what I was suggesting. But you are right, it might not be possible to do so for the reasons you gave.

[Sauron the White]

Galendor - keep in mind I am agreeing in principle with your idea. I think it has real possibilities if they only need to work the Lord of the Rings idea (Sauron and the Ring) into all the other films. With HOBBIT its easy since that central anyways - well not Sauron so much but the Ring sure is. Clever writers will find a way if that is what they want to do.

[davem]

As I said, those statements from Adam that I gave prove nothing at all - except that Adam is not completely opposed to the existence of movies. Personally speaking I have no desire to see any more Tolkien movies like the LotR farrago (yes, StW, that's my opinion).

Even assuming that Bailie & Michael George follow CT's wishes that doesn't translate to never - in fact, while my life will remain perfectly complete & fulfilled without ever seeing another Tolkien movie, I can't see that objecting to any movie adaptation on principle is admirable - anymore than the medieval Church's objection to the printing of Bibles. Yes, the books are great art, but cinema may produce great art too. That's why I say that a lot will depend on what we see on screen in 2010. Its not impossible that CT could have liked a movie adaptation of LotR - unfortunately the one he saw was Jacksons. What if he'd actually liked it (ie if it had been of sufficient quality)? I'm assuming that he went with an open mind. Also he was quite happy to contribute to the BBC radio adaptation of LotR, to the extent of being sent the script for approval & recording a cassette of pronunciations. This alone says to me that he is not totally opposed to dramatisation of his father's works.

All I'm arguing is 'never say never' - given the right circumstances, & I wouldn't be shocked if the film rights to Tolkien's other writings were sold in the not too distant future - though at the same time I'm not expecting an announcement next week...

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Also he was quite happy to contribute to the BBC radio adaptation of LotR, to the extent of being sent the script for approval & recording a cassette of pronunciations. This alone says to me that he is not totally opposed to dramatisation of his father's works.

Interesting you should bring that up: remember, CT's press release said he thought his father's writing unsuitable for visual dramatic adaptation. Why this should be an important distinction I haven't been told: it may relate to the strictures JRRT gives in On Fairy-Stories; but it might well relate to the fact that a radio-play is still a medium based on words.

[Sauron the White]

Somebody here - perhaps davem or WCH - told a story a while back about JRRT himself attending a school play of THE HOBBIT. If I remember right, Tolkien beamed broad smiles when they they kept exactly to a scene or some bit of dialogue but became displeased and agitated whenever they deviated in any way. I guess that speaks volumes as why Hollywood is loathe to give authors anything approaching control when their work is translated from print to film.

Maybe that is why he enjoyed the radio production so much. Things do not have to be so heavily cut given that you have much more time and can serialize things over weeks or months. On the radio you can have a narrator which is much closer to a book. And this is just a guess on my part - but I bet its much cheaper to use the book as a script where possible given that you save money from writers having to rewrite anything.

I have a feeling that given this choice

Film A - very loyal in both script and spirit to Tolkien almost to the point of slavishness. At the box office it barely makes it money back and people find it too long with too many talking heads and dull parts.

Film B - Jackson action treatment with Jackson big box office results.

I tend to think that both JRRT and CT would vote loudly and often for the A choice.