Or no Hobbits at all...

[Sauron the White]

In the absence of defined language in the contract which clearly specifies what is income and what are expenses, I would expect this is going to come down to a definition of both of those terms by armies of very well paid accountants and attorneys. I would expect NL to list every single dollar they have spent on behalf of LOTR in any capacity that it was done. I would expect them to mitigate their income by using every conceivable accounting device that they can get in under New York law, if that is the applicable standard.

In the end, I would not be surprised is NL takes the tact that yes the film did indeed make a profit and stockholders, Jackson and Zaentz did share in the profits HOWEVER the levels of profit did not meet the threshhold of that magic number times the 2.6% in the contract with JRRT.

Or perhaps we will see a out of court settlement. I expect nothing at all to happen with the demand for a stripping of rights from NL. Not one thing.

from WCH

This provides some wiggle room, as in perhaps the Estate agreeing to allow some studio not connected with NL to buy the rights

.

Why would the Estate have any voice at all in which studio gets the HOBBIT or LOTR rights if NL is stripped of them. Those rights will soon revert to Saul Zaentz who owns them and can make that decision on his own. How can the Estate get back what does not belong to them and has not belonged to them for three decades now? Saul Zaentz also claimed to be an injured party at the hands of NL and had to sue them. How can the Estate leapfrog over the rights of Zaentz when he is not the one who injured them?

Or is that what this is all about?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Accounting terms don't exist in a vaccum*: definitions and acceptable methods are rigorously defined in the 'generally accepted accounting practices' established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.

Moreover, I take 'certain specified costs' in the contract to mean that only certain expenditures can be counted.

I would be utterly *un*surprised if New Line loses the Hobbit rights or is forced to sell them. Courts generally always refuse to enforce contracts in favor of fraudsters and deadbeats.


*No, they don't exist in a cow any more than they do in an airless void

[Sauron the White]

from WCH

Accounting terms don't exist in a vaccum*: definitions and acceptable methods are rigorously defined in the 'generally accepted accounting practices' established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.

If that is so cut and dry, what do these rigorously defined standards say and mean as it applies to film revenue and expenses?
Until we know that, all this is just idle speculation based on next to nothing.

Moreover, I take 'certain specified costs' in the contract to mean that only certain expenditures can be counted.

And until we know if those "certain specified costs" are listed, enumerated or defined in the contract, such statements are merely speculation.

I would be utterly *un*surprised if New Line loses the Hobbit rights or is forced to sell them. Courts generally always refuse to enforce contracts in favor of fraudsters and deadbeats.

Fraud must first be proven in a court. We are light years away from that. And even if those rights are eventually stripped from New Line, they revert to Saul Zaentz. The Tolkien Estate has no claim on Saul Zaentz.

Or is that what they are going to try to do in the end? Leapfrog over the rights of Zaentz to somehow, someway claim that they want them back?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

It's tactical leverage. If New Line is looking at the possibility of losing the Hobbit rights and getting nothing for them, they may well be amenable to getting something for them by selling them back to Zaentz or to a third party in whose hands they would not be at risk. Once those rights are no longer connected to NLC or Warners they are out from under the cloud, and production could proceed- even using PJ if desired. MGM/UA, who already have the distribution rights, might jump all over that.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Fraud must first be proven in a court

Fraudsters *and* deadbeats. If you don't pay your bills, you're a deadbeat.

[Sauron the White]

from WCH

If you don't pay your bills, you're a deadbeat

Very true. And from that I take it that the Estate gave an itemized bill to NL to pay? It could be that because of the deal that JRRT himself signed, NL feels that the royalty threshold has not yet been reached. In that case, they can make a legal arguement for not having a bill to pay.

As I have said, I am all in favor of the Estate getting every dollar owed to them. I am totally and completely against any kind of legal ruse or claim that would restore the rights to both HOBBIT and LOTR back to the Estate over the legitimate claim of Saul Zaentz.

The cynical part of me suspects that something like that may be part of all this. And that same cynical part also suspects that the Estate would not mind preventing any more films being made for year after year while this winds it ways though a series of courts.

[alatar]

Not to takes sides, but I'm not sure why the Estate would not want more films to be made. Surely the glory and fame of Peter Jackson's films has died, or at least has waned, and so for the Estate, another go at the movies can only increase books sales and cash flow (whether or however they get a cut) - as the other movies obviously did.

[Sauron the White]

Alatar ... my statement that the Estate may not want additional films made is based on many posts here and on other sites where people of a Purist stripe keep saying the films should not have been made and do not want the others made either.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

It seems a fair gesture on the part of a filmmaker to go out and hire an expert on something of which he has little knowledge. That is what happened with the hiring of Salo. Instead of criticizing Jackson for this effort, it would seem some praise is in order for him attempting to go the extra mile to get things right.

I have not criticized Jackson for seeking out an expert on Elvish, I expected him to do so.

And my earlier issue with his desire for 'accuracy' was in a larger context than whether or not he desired to get any grammar correct -- it's about the decision to toss out what one knows is accurate for what simply cannot be Elvish of the same order. It's easy enough: if one wants unassailable accuracy (and authenticity) use what you find in the books. All other Neo-elvish is already on a different level; and it's a different thing from the art of JRRT, no matter how well researched and fabricated.

That said, generally speaking I would no more mind invented Elvish in a film than invented scenes with Boromir, for example. But that's different from largely tossing out the scenes and dialog that Tolkien wrote concerning Boromir -- and replacing them with a greater bulk of others (written by Boyens or someone) which do not capture the spirit of the books, or which change Boromir into a character that resembles Tolkien's in name only (hypothetically -- actually Sean Bean was a bright spot in the films for me).

This kind of constant carping simply reinforces the idea that nothing short of a literal word for word translation- in this case Elvish words = from the page to the screen would have pleased some. I know of no cases where audiences emptied from the theaters in anger screaming "the Elvish was wrong"

Using some constructed Elvish in the same way Tolkien largely used his work would have been fine with me (despite that it is not 'true Elvish' to my mind).

The issue is Jackson choosing to largely discard the actual Elvish in the tale in favor of the Neo-constructions, including the issue raised by Mr. Hostetter, whose comments include '... constituting (mostly banal) _dialogue_ of the sort entirely _missing_ from Tolkien's own application of Elvish in his story (or anywhere else)').

And no one said audiences were emptying theaters in anger screaming. There's no need to inject hyperbole here -- my part of the discussion with zxcvbn has now (since the issue of 'evidence versus opinion' is off the table for the moment) narrowed down to me wondering why I should blame the person hired to construct the fabricated Elvish...

... when I am criticizing rather those who decided to largely leave JRR Tolkien's work at the door, and use lots of Neo-elvish instead.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

What Peter Jackson was concerned with was making the best possible film he could make and having that film be a success by the standard measurements common in the commercial film business. And by those measurements it was a wild success. (...) Accuracy ---- what the heck is that? No film adaption is anything near the realm of "accuracy". Its an entirely different medium. One cannot adapt anything accurately from a book into the far different medium of film unless you use the book as your shooting script . Anything else is change. Accuracy regarding something as an obscure language which hardly anyone speaks is irrelevant as far as a films success is concerned. It would mean nothing either way and as such is a non issue.

I note that now accuracy is irrelevant when you shift the context to 'film success'. Earlier however, you were suggesting we roll out some praise for Jackson with your statement: 'Instead of criticizing Jackson for this effort, it would seem some praise is in order for him attempting to go the extra mile to get things right.'

Should we praise Jackson for his pursuit of accuracy in this matter? Or should we just note that it's irrelevant anyway with respect to 'film success'?

How the emphasis appears to have shifted

And if we stick to the subject of accuracy with respect to the Elvish then it's not really all that hard, of course, or overly mysterious, to keep things Tolkien-made if desired.

I'm not a scholar of the invented languages. That noted, had anyone hired me to represent JRRT's Elvish tongues in a film I feel reasonably confident I could: A) find the Elvish in the books for the director B) tell him what the examples mean using the sources available C) help with pronunciation D) add my thoughts concerning the creative task of incorporating the attested Elvish into the films.

No, I'm not going to praise Jackson for hiring someone to fabricate a different order of Elvish while largely tossing Tolkien's Elvish aside. And I see no great reason to blame Salo either.

[davem]

I can only note that CT did not get too hung up on correct pronunciation - in the tape he made as a pronunciation guide for the radio adaptation he pointed out that the 'correct' pronunciation of, say, Celeborn would be 'Keleborrn', but that in a modern dramatisation that wasn't necessary & 'Keleborn' would be acceptable. He also stated that in many cases there wasn't a 'correct' pronunciation of all words. The important thing, as far as he was concerned, was to avoid obvious mistakes in pronunciation - like 'Soron', etc.

Oh, & if anyone wants to hear some of that tape its available on a CD from Nigel Sustins via his website http://www.biblio.com/search.php?aut...at=any&stage=1

'Microphones in Middle-Earth', talks given at Church House, Westminster, relating to the BBC Radio dramatisation of Tolkien's 'Lord of the Rings' on 5th March 1981. [Track 1] Brian Sibley and Michael Bakewell, co-adapters of the series, talk about how they tackled the task (33 minutes); [Track 2] Penny Leicester, co-producer, Stephen Oliver, composer, David Collings, actor (Legolas) and Peter Woodthorpe, actor (Gollum) discuss their work on the series (39 minutes).

It only includes the first few minutes of the CT recording, but its very interesting to hear his attitude to dramatisation.

[Sauron the White]

from Galin

I note that now accuracy is irrelevant when you shift the context to 'film success'. Earlier however, you were suggesting we roll out some praise for Jackson with your statement: 'Instead of criticizing Jackson for this effort, it would seem some praise is in order for him attempting to go the extra mile to get things right.'

Should we praise Jackson for his pursuit of accuracy in this matter? Or should we just note that it's irrelevant anyway with respect to 'film success'?

You seem to be a stickler for the tiniest iota of detail so allow me to add a few qualifying words to my original statement....

Jackson went the extra mile to get things right as necessary for the film. I had thought that was implied from my comments but I guess that was my fault for not making it more clear. So I do so here.

Over the years we have seen countless discussions of this type where someone has a particular deep interest or love of one specific aspect of the book and is angry or dissapointed that it was altered for the movie. Here it seems to be Elvish. With others its the hair color of Legolas or Boromir. With others its the lack of facial hair on Denethor. Others claim that Theoden is too young and virile. And on it goes without end.

We are discussing the movie. When we discuss the movie it is relevant to mention that the film was a rousing success by most standard industry measurements because that is the final test of such commercial ventures. To the vast majority of the six hundred ticket buyers of the films, it did not matter if the hair color of Legolas or Boromir was correct or how long ago Denethor had stopped shaving or if a phrase of Elvish was accurate or had been cobbled together from someones imigination. It matered not to them because the film worked. It worked.

Peter Jackson had no obligation to make his film as accurate as possible or as faithful as possible or as bookish as possible. None at all. Because none of those things matter in the final judgment as to the film working as a film.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

You seem to be a stickler for the tiniest iota of detail so allow me to add a few qualifying words to my original statement....

I'm just trying to say on topic instead of being pulled into a discussion that (it appears) you want to have.

Over the years we have seen countless discussions of this type where someone has a particular deep interest or love of one specific aspect of the book and is angry or dissapointed that it was altered for the movie. Here it seems to be Elvish. With others its the hair color of Legolas or Boromir. With others its the lack of facial hair on Denethor. Others claim that Theoden is too young and virile. And on it goes without end. To the vast majority of the six hundred ticket buyers of the films, it did not matter if the hair color of Legolas or Boromir was correct or how long ago Denethor had stopped shaving or if a phrase of Elvish was accurate or had been cobbled together from someones imigination. It matered not to them because the film worked. It worked.

The matter under discussion was not in the context of how important or minor it is to a film's success. You appear to be trying to shift it that way. I'm well aware that a phrase being Elvish or Neo-elvish doesn't really matter to the vast majority concerning the film; however the point I raised by quoting Mr. Hostetter is about fidelity to the tone and feel of Tolkien's work.

And this alone is a worthy enough point to be raised to my mind, despite that one could jump into the thread and claim that no Elvish at all was necessarily 'necessary' in the film for it to make tons of money or win some Hollywood award -- and thus make it seem as if the matter is trivial in a certain context (no matter whether it is 'trivial' or not with respect to other considerations worth discussing).

Peter Jackson had no obligation to make his film as accurate as possible or as faithful as possible or as bookish as possible. None at all. Because none of those things matter in the final judgment as to the film working as a film.

Again I'm not sure with whom you are having this discussion. Earlier I wrote...

'My priority would be to successfully adapt the spirit of the source material to film, and create a successful film too.' (and) '... but as I have already stated, a measure of constructed Elvish in the film would not bother me.'

I have not argued that with respect to the Elvish Jackson was under some obligation to be as 'accurate as possible' (staying 'on topic' on the languages, off topic as it may actually be, in this thread).

[Sauron the White]

Galin
Please... please ... no patronizing lectures from on high about my being off topic. The topic here was "or no hobbits at all". And you keep talking about the use of Elvish in the LOTR films. Seems the pot is calling the kettle black.

All I am trying to do is discuss an issue you posted about here. With all due respect to you, I reserve the right to approach it in the way I feel is best. Thank you.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Please... please ... no patronizing lectures from on high about my being off topic. The topic here was "or no hobbits at all". And you keep talking about the use of Elvish in the LOTR films. Seems the pot is calling the kettle black.

In my last post I admitted the languages were off-topic here.

And earlier when you began (post 83): 'What does it matter to the construction, flow and success of LOTR as a film...' (see above) I responded with: 'That's a different discussion that I have not really entered into here. If you want to start a new thread on it I will be happy to read it and maybe contribute.'

In any case, the issue is not so much topic, but the topic in context.

All I am trying to do is discuss an issue you posted about here. With all due respect to you, I reserve the right to approach it in the way I feel is best. Thank you.

Feel free. You don't need to quote something from my posts to form a soapbox for your opinions on 'film success' however.

And intended or not, I feel you are misrepresenting my argument by doing so, as the contexts are different (for example [currently] post 88).

I have no problem with you giving your opinion on accuracy in general but at the end of post 91 it seems implied that my argument concerning 'accuracy' is something it is not; and it only takes a few moments to word a post for better clarity in this regard.

[Sauron the White]

from Galin

In any case, the issue is not so much topic,

really? It seems to be something that you have brought up a couple of times until you were called on it.

but the topic in context.

The context here is not as narrow as you want to keep it. As the moderators have explained over and over in many threads, discussion of the work of JRRT and the movies that flow for that work is on topic regardless of the ebb and flow of how a thread evolves.

It does seem really bizarre and highly irregular for you to even mention being off topic when this thread was started to discuss the possibility that there may not be any HOBBIT films at all. You eventually mentioning that reality in no way diminiishes your own deviation from that orginal thread topic.

Lets get back to the thread topic of no more hobbits if we can.

[Galin]

I think the thread as it stands shows that I meant I wanted to keep the topic in context (for my part anyway).

The context here is not as narrow as you want to keep it. As the moderators have explained over and over in many threads, discussion of the work of JRRT and the movies that flow for that work is on topic regardless of the ebb and flow of how a thread evolves.

I said feel free to enlarge the context as you like -- just try and do it in a way that does not misrepresent my argument please.

Lets get back to the thread topic of no more hobbits if we can.

I'm all for that

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

This thread was started to discuss the legal actions taken by the Tolkien Estate and how it may end up finishing off the idea of the 2 possible HOBBIT films.

Your posts have continually discussed the Elvish language in the Jackson films.

How in the world can you now say with a straight face that you meant to keep the topic in context? Elvish language and its use or misuse has nothing to do with the original topic of this thread.

And what is with this "for my part anyway"? It was your part that played a significant role in getting this off the topic that the thread started with. Is that qualfier some sort of public show of washing your hands to show that you are without any responsibility?

As I have said, the threads flow and evolve the way they do and the mods have said that as long as we discuss Tolkien or the films it is okay. But to first change the topic of the thread and then lecture me that I am not discussing it in the context you want to is completely bizarre.

I meant the 'topic of the languages' that arose in this thread -- yes obviously a subtopic technically. I could have stated that more clearly; but as I could hardly be claiming to have kept on topic with respect to the original (topic), the meaning seemed clear to me when I posted it. All I meant by 'for my part' is that I did not desire to get dragged into the context of 'Elvish and the film's success'... though as I say others are free to go there, of course.

Back to the 'main topic' I hope.

[ArathornJax]

In terms of the lawsuit, I think it will be some time before we hear anything more in the public realm about the suit. I imagine that the lawyers on both sides are preparing and reviewing right now.

[zxcvbn]

Galin, it seems to me that the sum of your arguments is: In order to be accurate Peter Jackson should have incorporated ONLY the Elvish dialogue seen in the books and nothing else. I consider that an amazingly unfair expectation. NO adaptation of LOTR(BBC, film or the recent stage adaptaion made with the Estate's permission) has ever had the dialogue copy-pasted from the books.

And if you want to argue against the Salo Elvish reconstructions, I would like to point out that the accuracy(or lack of) of these is heavily debated, and I would advice against your passing off Carl Hostetter's opinions as fact when(I hazard a guess here) your own knowledge of Elvish is limited to a dozen or so words.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by zxcvbn

Galin, it seems to me that the sum of your arguments is: In order to be accurate Peter Jackson should have incorporated ONLY the Elvish dialogue seen in the books and nothing else. I consider that an amazingly unfair expectation. NO adaptation of LOTR(BBC, film or the recent stage adaptaion made with the Estate's permission) has ever had the dialogue copy-pasted from the books.

I have made statements already that I think should show that this is not my argument, though I agree I might not always have been wholly clear in setting apart my preference (concerning the approach to the languages in general), and my actual criticism of Jackson here.

Within my argument I mean Jackson could have incorporated only the Elvish from the books, not that he should have in the sense that he 'needed' to, but only 'should' have in the sense that I would have liked it better (myself) -- that is only 'step one' -- as in, one approach he could have taken, but did not.

OK, I prefer that, but also it is a factor to consider if one is going to paint Jackson as going the extra mile. In that Neo-elvish is not Elvish (Tolkien's own art) no matter how good the grammar is, or is not, and considering that 'unassailable accuracy' is found with Elvish, then jackson really went that extra mile after he decided to skip this approach.

Back to the Estate: originally I said Jackson didn't 'have to' go to the Estate or anyone to represent Tolkien's Elvish; and again he didn't have to go to Salo for fabricated Elvish (who then in turn tries to make that as accurate as he could). He could have hired someone to help with using only the Elvish already available. OK, he didn't, and this is not the problem.

My ultimate preference on the matter should not be confused with what I have criticized Jackson for doing -- missing the feel and tone with respect to the type of language he added and largely tossing Tolkien-made examples aside in one fell swoop.

By type I refer not to grammar or how good a job Salo did with his invented stuff, but to Elvish renderings of dialogue like 'Sit down Legolas' or 'Be quiet...' or similar (whatever they all are exactly, I can't remember now). By type I mean to refer to Mr. Hostetter's distinction when comparing Tolkien's work to Jackson's substitutions: '... please note, are almost entirely in the form of songs, poems, spells, and exclamations made in crisis or _de profundis_ that are used sparingly so as to punctuate the story and to not cheapen the effect of the Elvish -- and instead substituting for them long passages of made-up "Elvish" (however skillfully) constituting (mostly banal) _dialogue_ of the sort entirely _missing_ from Tolkien's own application of Elvish in his story (or anywhere else).'

And if you want to argue against the Salo Elvish reconstructions, I would like to point out that the accuracy(or lack of) of these is heavily debated, and I would advice against your passing off Carl Hostetter's opinions as fact when(I hazard a guess here) your own knowledge of Elvish is limited to a dozen or so words.

I don't want to argue against the accuracy of the grammar of Salo's Neo-elvish, and haven't been. Neither has Carl Hostetter in the quote I posted.

And here we are guessing that my own knowledge of Elvish is 'limited to a dozen or so words' incidentally. Can you correctly guess how tall I am? Or my favorite color?

I bet you can't

[Sauron the White]

Given the time that has passed since the Estate filing, does anyone know if there was a legal answer from NL/Warners? Is there any news on this front?

[zxcvbn]

Most likely several months will go by without news and we'll only know about the settlement when it happens, just as in the case of PJ's lawsuit.

By the way, what's this talk of Peter directing the second film? I thought the plan was to shoot both prequels simultaneously(like the LOTR films), indicating a common director for both? That would make sense considering that there is only a one year difference between the realeases.