Subject for the Second film?

[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.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

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.

Still the same old strawman.....

It is entirely possible to make a successful, dramatic, exciting adaptation of the LR (w/o 'too many talking heads and dull parts') without resorting to PJ's distortions and crudities- and above all, PJ's total cluelessness. Personally I would love to see such a film. It's the film I was waiting to see back in 2000-01. Boy, was I disappointed.

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.

And also speaks volumes about the lack of interest the Estate would have in your 'collaboration' proposal- technically they might have some representative on set, but his presence would be meaningless since the director can ignore him at will. So under the deal you are proposing, the Estate would give up rights they own without getting anything in return.

Incidentally, Jo Rowling's creative control doesn't seem to have hurt the HP films' boxoffice.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

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. .

The radio series took 13 hours - about the same time as the SEE of LotR, so they had the same time. The real problem with the movies was that the writers were convinced they could improve on Tolkien's work.