Or no Hobbits at all...

[Boromir88]

but I feel that the older members of the Tolkien Estate(who are the ones participating in the lawsuit) harbour a feeling of resentment and anger towards the movies and would rather not have any more made(hence the audacious 'seeking a court order banning the Hobbit'.)~zxcvbn

Hearing from some friends, the Tolkien Estate has always been pleasant and helpful but the same can't be said for New Line. This is coming from an administrator of a forum who had to deal with both the Estate and New Line to avoid any sort of legal issues). Also, as I believe davem mentions the Tolkien Estate has given millions of dollars to several charities, whilst New Line has had a tendency to cheat people out of their due money.

Think of it this way...it's going to be a slightly different scenario, but it's virtually what the argument is here.

If a company wants to put your face on their merchandise and they say you will get 5% of the revenue they make from merchandise, but you don't see a penny of that money (or you don't get what they promised you) if they come to you again asking "hey can we put your face on our merchandise, you'll get 5%...etc) are you going to say yes a second time, knowing they cheated you before? Then why would the Estate let New Line continue to make these movies if New Line had not honoured their contract?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

source close to Tolkien family' revealing that he is 'catatonic' over the films success and thinks that all popular entertainment is unutterably low

That press report was a fabrication. Untrue. Either the 'pal' in question was lying through his teeth and doesn't actually know CRT, or the reporter simply made him up (as the British press have invented so many other 'facts' about CRT).

Consider: on a parallel thread we've been discussing the extent to which CT helped out with the BBC radio production, even recording a tape of Elvish pronunciation.

In point of fact CRT likes movies. Just not these particular movies.

[davem]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Consider: on a parallel thread we've been discussing the extent to which CT helped out with the BBC radio production, even recording a tape of Elvish pronunciation.

CT's participation in the radio production has to be kept in mind here - that adaptation was not a straight 'lift' from the books - new scenes were specially written (one in episode 1, where Sam brings post to Bilbo & Frodo in Bag End, another in episode 2 where Gandalf visits Edoras & asks for help after escaping from Orthanc). Other episodes & characters were omitted (Bombadil/Barrow Downs, Gildor, Imrahil, Elladan & Ellrohir). But the point is that before the production began the scripts were sent to Christopher for approval - which he gave. Sibley stated that Christopher was very sympathetic to the difficulties they faced in adapting the story into another medium.

In fact, a few years later one of the adaptors of the series, Brian Sibley, dramatised some of Tolkien's short stories (Niggle, Smith, Giles, &, interestingly, the Old Forest/Bombadil/Barrow Downs episode missed out of the series). Point being, Christopher is not stupid, realises that there is a difference between books & dramatisations - whether that's to radio or film - & appreciates that some changes are necessary. But not every change is necessary.

Of course, as far as I know, the movie makers didn't even bother to consult Christopher - which is hardly a sign of respect. And something else to bear in mind here is that the producers of the stage show requested, & received, access to all Tolkien's linguistic writings.

I can't help feeling that if the movie makers had consulted Christopher he would have been prepared to help out, & that the movies would have been all the better for it - and anyone who thinks that he would simply have demanded every single thing from the book should be included, & would have vetoed every change simply misunderstands him.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

34. Notwithstanding New Line's obfuscation, even the partial audit revealed that New Line has failed and refused, and continues to fail and refuse. to properly account, calculate and pay the Gross Receipts Participation due and owing to plaintiffs under the 1969 Agreements in numerous ways, including but not limited to the following:

a. Substantially understating Gross Receipts earned on the Films by, among other things, underreporting hundreds of millions of dollars in domestic and international home video/DVD receipts, improperly and intentionally excluding Gross Receipts received by New Line and its affiliates in connection with the Films. failing and refusing to calculate Gross Receipts "at the source" where New Line or its affiliates have self-distributed the Films or distributed it through a "rent-a-system," joint venture or other similar arrangement;

b. Substantially overstating purported costs and expenses associated with the Films by, among other things, improperly including hundreds of millions of dollars in participation payments and bonuses for certain talent. production companies and prior rights holders, including without limitation New Line's predecessors-in-interest Zaentz and Miramax, improperly including hundreds of millions of dollars in purported worldwide advertising, publicity and promotional costs; improperly claiming hundreds of millions of dollars of purported overhead, administrative, supervisory or similar charges; and accruing hundreds of millions of dollars of participations not yet due or payable;
...
d. Improperly charging plaintiffs with millions of dollars as a purported "overbudget penalty," phantom interest charges and/or other similar charges in calculating the Artificial Payment Level;
....
g. Failing and refusing to deduct from the costs of production amounts received by New Line and/or its affiliates in the form of production tax subsidies, rebates, and the like.

Seems the industry hasn't mended its ways since the Buchwald case.

[zxcvbn]

Originally Posted by davem

Of course, as far as I know, the movie makers didn't even bother to consult Christopher - which is hardly a sign of respect. And something else to bear in mind here is that the producers of the stage show requested, & received, access to all Tolkien's linguistic writings.

I can't help feeling that if the movie makers had consulted Christopher he would have been prepared to help out, & that the movies would have been all the better for it - and anyone who thinks that he would simply have demanded every single thing from the book should be included, & would have vetoed every change simply misunderstands him.

My dear davem, I'm not sure if you'd been following the development of the LOTR films from the beginning(I guess not) but the filmmakers DID approach the Tolkien Estate for assistance(including approval of scripts). The Estate declined since they feared that their participation would be seen as an endorsement of the films, making them 'official'. I believe the old PJ interview where he says this is still up on AICN somewhere.

[davem]

Originally Posted by zxcvbn

My dear davem, I'm not sure if you'd been following the development of the LOTR films from the beginning(I guess not) but the filmmakers DID approach the Tolkien Estate for assistance(including approval of scripts). The Estate declined since they feared that their participation would be seen as an endorsement of the films, making them 'official'. I believe the old PJ interview where he says this is still up on AICN somewhere.

That's interesting - I've got a tape of a South Bank Show (UK arts programme) where Jackson stated that they'd avoided getting involved with the Estate as they (ie the film makers) didn't want the movies seen as 'officially authorised' versions, because this was just to be their own take on the story.

So, I've now seen both versions, so I'm not sure what the actual truth is. I can see that the Estate would maybe not want to get involved if their participation was to be trumpeted by New Line as official endorsement, but as I stated CT offered a great deal of help with the radio series, & also gave permission for the producers of the Musical to use Tolkien's linguistic writings. Of course, in neither case did the Estate officially recognise, or endorse, the productions. However, things can be done 'behind the scenes'. 'Approval of scripts' is a delicate matter - would they have allowed CT a veto over anything he found unnacceptable, or was it a case of them showing him the scripts & simply saying 'This is what we're going to do, let us know if you like it'? Did the movie makers offer such a veto - if not, I can see that they'd decline to participate. All I can say, without knowing more about exactly what kind of approach they made, is that in two adaptations (one of which is very much in a visual form) they offered some degree of assistance, & in the other they had no participation. They seem to have a good relationship with both the producers of the radio & stage versions & a pretty poor one with the makers of the films...

[Child of the 7th Age]

This article just appeared in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/mo...html?th&emc=th

The article mentions the other suits against New Line as well--the second lawsuit filed by Zaentz last December which still must be tried and the one by 16 New Zeeland actors that will come to trial in December 2008.

One attorney feels that part of the problem in all this litigation is the fact that New Line computes its profits differently than other studios:

What they’re accounting for is different than the majors, because the majors are worldwide distributors,” said David Colden, an entertainment lawyer with the Beverly Hills firm Colden, McKuin & Frankel, which is not involved in any of the litigation. New Line’s international division works through foreign distributors that are not part of the company, while major studios are equipped to distribute directly abroad. The way New Line calculated payments based on its revenue from its foreign distributors of “Rings” was a major issue in the first Zaentz suit, filed in 2004.

Also, any litigation will be tremendously complicated because there are so many contractual agreements to consider: (1) the literary-rights agreement made in 1969 with United Artists (2) the agreement made in 1976 which sold the rights to Zaentz (3) the agreement of 1997 that licensed them to Miramax, AND, (4) the final agreement in 1998 that licensed them to New Line

[davem]

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

Also, any litigation will be tremendously complicated because there are so many contractual agreements to consider: (1) the literary-rights agreement made in 1969 with United Artists (2) the agreement made in 1976 which sold the rights to Zaentz (3) the agreement of 1997 that licensed them to Miramax, AND, (4) the final agreement in 1998 that licensed them to New Line

Well, New Line made an initial payment to the Estate of $62,500 so they must have been working to one of those agreements - unless they just picked that figure out of thin air. It would seem from the case brought by the Estate/Harper Collins that the agreement it is based on is the original. I don't think its legal to change the rights of one party to an agreement if the other party sells its rights on. Tolkien, & by extension the Estate, has the rights he signed up for, & is due the money. The idea that all that money could be made from the movies & yet, because contracts are sold on/leased out, he doesn't get what the contract said he should get is at best ridiculous & at worst dangerous - wouldn't it mean that any writer who signs a similar film deal could end up in the same position - its a perfect way for a studio to get the rights to any work virtually for free.

Sorry, but if New Line can get away with paying nothing to the Estate because of the way their movies are distributed then its no different to people illegally downloading movies or music in order to avoid paying for it. The idea that NLC could make so much money out of Tolkien's lifetime work & avoid paying anything for it because of this kind of 'creative accounting/distribution' is sickening, & I'm sorry, but if they get away with it then no-one who calls themselves a Tolkien fan should have anything to do with their movies or merchandising, & anyone who goes to see the Hobbit movie or its sequel should be ashamed of themselves. Ripping off Jackson or Zaentz is one thing, ripping off JRR Tolkien, & the CHARITY that operates in his name is another.

Of course, if anyone felt inclined to download them illegally.......

[zxcvbn]

Originally Posted by davem

That's interesting - I've got a tape of a South Bank Show (UK arts programme) where Jackson stated that they'd avoided getting involved with the Estate as they (ie the film makers) didn't want the movies seen as 'officially authorised' versions, because this was just to be their own take on the story.

davem, I couldn't reply for a few days because my computer was down, but now here is the link to the actual interview.
http://list.pvv.org/pipermail/hexago...er/001863.html

We are dealing with the "estate", rather than
Christopher personally. They have made their
position very clear: While they are in no way
opposed to a film(s) being made, they do not
want to be involved.

The reason is basically simple: if they had any
involvement, then the films would become
"official" - in other words, they would be seen
as being endorsed by the estate. This is a
situation that the estate does not want, as
they consider themselves to be protectors of
Tolkien's written word, not film makers. I
don't think the estate will be reading scripts
or commenting on the movies. We keep them
informed on progress, which they appreciate,
but they want their involvement to be very arms
length.

This interview dates back to 1998, before the films proved to be such a success and when all parties involved were a lot more humble. So I'm inclined to think PJ was telling the truth. What year is that South Bank show tape from?

Originally Posted by davem

So, I've now seen both versions, so I'm not sure what the actual truth is.

Maybe both? The two don't exactly contradict each other.

Originally Posted by davem

I can see that the Estate would maybe not want to get involved if their participation was to be trumpeted by New Line as official endorsement, but as I stated CT offered a great deal of help with the radio series, & also gave permission for the producers of the Musical to use Tolkien's linguistic writings. Of course, in neither case did the Estate officially recognise, or endorse, the productions. However, things can be done 'behind the scenes'. 'Approval of scripts' is a delicate matter - would they have allowed CT a veto over anything he found unnacceptable, or was it a case of them showing him the scripts & simply saying 'This is what we're going to do, let us know if you like it'? Did the movie makers offer such a veto - if not, I can see that they'd decline to participate. All I can say, without knowing more about exactly what kind of approach they made, is that in two adaptations (one of which is very much in a visual form) they offered some degree of assistance, & in the other they had no participation. They seem to have a good relationship with both the producers of the radio & stage versions & a pretty poor one with the makers of the films...

Well, I believe the Tolkien Estate had the rights to the stage and radio versions. On the other hand they didn't have the film rights. A few years ago while googling
I came upon an web page on Simon Tolkien(Christopher's disinherited son) where he said that the reason Christopher felt that the Estate should have no involvement in the films is because they didn't own the rights and had no creative control(JRRT chose cash over kudos). Simon countered by saying that the films were going to be made anyway, better to have the Estate involved so thay maybe they can 'steer' them in the right direction. That, among other things, led to the rift between father and son.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

....That, among other things, led to the rift between father and son.

Oh, no. The rift went back years and years, although the press coverage at the time took that angle, and Simon's original interview was craftily phrased to allow unwitting journalists to assume what was not actually said. Even PJ confirms that at the time he first met Simon in 1998 he and his father hadn't been on speaking terms for a long time. This has everything to do with the unhappy relationship between a father and the child of his first marriage, and little or nothing to do with movies.

That to my mind doesn't excuse Simon airing the family's dirty laundry in an effort to peddle his own book. (Incidentally, Simon isn't 'disinherited': he still gets his cut.)


In any event, 'steering' was never a realistic option- PJ and/or New Line were *only* interested in being able to trumpet the Estate's 'seal of approval' for marketing purposes.