Or no Hobbits at all...

[Galin]

Originally Posted by zxcvbn

The films had several scenes where characters exchange Elvish dialogue which does not match the books word-by-word, and many of the songs in the soundtrack had Elvish lyrics. This demanded a lot more words and grammar than was printed in the LOTR books.

Yes, and this includes a decision on someone's part to add more fabricated Elvish. Since none was necessarily 'needed' for a film, I'm not sure what the point is here.

Re-read my previous post before repeating the same argument again. Jackson himself didn't know anything about Elvish, so he hired Salo. From his point of view, Salo's Elvish was as accurate as can be, since he probably hasn't read any critiques of Salo's work from the scholarly community.

I'll try a question here: was it Salo's decision to discard much of Tolkien's Elvish in favor of invented stuff?

One doesn't need to know much about Tolkien's Elvish to see what appears in the book, and incorporate that into the films. One might need help in incorporating it 'correctly'... but that doesn't mean adding all kinds of invented stuff while discarding Tolkien's material.

[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. 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"

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

I know of no cases where audiences emptied from the theaters in anger screaming "the Elvish was wrong"

Possibly not. Most scholars of Middle-earth and Tolkien's languages would probably be too polite and socially gracious to do that.

I did, however, hear of mutterings to the effect of, "The Elvish has left the building."

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Possibly not. Most scholars of Middle-earth and Tolkien's languages would probably be too polite and socially gracious to do that. I did, however, hear of mutterings to the effect of, "The Elvish has left the building."

Indeed 'it left'.

And, just for clarity here, for the thread, to my mind Carl Hostetter (since he is a scholar) is not criticizing how 'wrong' he thinks the fabricated Elvish is, or might be (regarding grammar or pronunciation), but rather that it does not capture the spirit of the books due to its nature. Moreover, it has taken over the linguistic stage not simply due to its own bulk, but due also to a disappearance of Tolkien's actual examples.

Not that I can speak for Mr. Hostetter, but I see nothing in the quoted section above about grammar or whatever... indeed he adds 'however skillfully' because that's not the point.

[zxcvbn]

Galin, it seems my discussion with you has reached a dead end. Regardless of how I reply, you seem to be repeating the same point over and over; that Jackson is guilty because he 'chose' to put 'fabricated' Elvish in the films. I once again reply that Jackson would not know that the Elvish was fabricated, and from his perspective(as well as most other fans') Salo's Elvish is the real thing. And indeed, whether or not it matches what Tolkien had in mind in his last years, it has been constructed using the Professor's own texts as a basis(use of loan words, earlier drafts etc.).

And as for maintainging the 'feel' of Middle-earth, it certainly sounds quite authentic, even if the exact words are somewhat different(something only a few people like Hostetter could make out).

[Sauron the White]

from Galin

It's easy enough: if one wants unassailable accuracy (and authenticity) use what you find in the books.

I understand your point and respect that it means something important to you and some others who share your love of the Professors Elvish . (and special bonus points to Bethberry for the best line of the month on the Elvish leaving the building). However, not meaning to be rude, but one is tempted to say "so what"? What does it matter to the construction, flow and success of LOTR as a film if the Elvish is used word for word, is changed slightly, or is invented out of whole cloth ? It really has no impact or effect on the film as a film.

Why would a filmmaker want "unassailable accuracy and authenticity" by using what they find in the books if it does not help them in constructing the story as a film? That is one of their main priorities and helps to determine the success of a film. The idea of "unassailable accuracy" means little or nothing in determining the overall success of a film.

I am not trying to belittle your position. Just to clarify that your priorities are clearly not the priorities of the world of commercial filmmakers.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by zxcvbn

Galin, it seems my discussion with you has reached a dead end. Regardless of how I reply, you seem to be repeating the same point over and over; that Jackson is guilty because he 'chose' to put 'fabricated' Elvish in the films. I once again reply that Jackson would not know that the Elvish was fabricated, and from his perspective(as well as most other fans') Salo's Elvish is the real thing.

He can read, of course. You appear to be defending Jackson for being ignorant enough to not even bother to check the books, or have someone do it for him. I'm not going to blame Salo for that either. And you are simplifying what I'm saying Jackson 'chose' to do -- see below.

And indeed, whether or not it matches what Tolkien had in mind in his last years, it has been constructed using the Professor's own texts as a basis(use of loan words, earlier drafts etc.). And as for maintainging the 'feel' of Middle-earth, it certainly sounds quite authentic, even if the exact words are somewhat different(something only a few people like Hostetter could make out).

If you disagree with Mr. Hostetter fine (as I said); but he is not talking about the sound or the exact words, but the type of language.

The 'taste' of Sindarin is well enough represented in my opinion -- but I have no great praise for anyone who decided to construct phrases like 'Sit down Legolas' and a pile of other similar Neo-language.

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

I understand your point and respect that it means something important to you and some others who share your love of the Professors Elvish . (and special bonus points to Bethberry for the best line of the month on the Elvish leaving the building). However, not meaning to be rude, but one is tempted to say "so what"? What does it matter to the construction, flow and success of LOTR as a film if the Elvish is used word for word, is changed slightly, or is invented out of whole cloth ? It really has no impact or effect on the film as a film.

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.

Why would a filmmaker want "unassailable accuracy and authenticity" by using what they find in the books if it does not help them in constructing the story as a film? That is one of their main priorities and helps to determine the success of a film. The idea of "unassailable accuracy" means little or nothing in determining the overall success of a film.

Nor would 'unassailable accuracy and authenticity' regarding the Elvish necessarily hurt the overall success of a film -- but as I have already stated, a measure of constructed Elvish in the film would not bother me. What Jackson did do goes beyond that however.

I am not trying to belittle your position. Just to clarify that your priorities are clearly not the priorities of the world of commercial filmmakers.

My priority would be to successfully adapt the spirit of the source material to film, and create a successful film too. That includes the languages, including the matter Mr. Hostetter speaks to regarding the tone and feel -- which does not mean Jackson needed to use only the Elvish found in the books.

The point was: if Jackson was so concerned with accuracy he could have easily achieved it by incorporating only the Elvish from the books. Ok he didn't, so, so much for 'accuracy' step one.

But I wouldn't be criticizing him today if all he did was add some constructed stuff of the same order as Tolkien's actual Elvish -- he went beyond adding fabricated Elvish, he added stuff of a different feel from the books and chose to largely discard Tolkien attested examples along the way. So, if one tries to paint Peter Jackson as the director in search of linguistic accuracy, because he hired an expert -- let's remember that at the same time he's largely tossing Tolkien's actual Elvish out the window.

Yes Jackson desired a measure and type of 'accuracy', once he decided that he was going to approach the languages his way that is.

[ArathornJax]

On page 7 and 8 of the compliant, the compliant traces the history of the rights from UA, to Zaentz to Miramax to New Line.

The compliant says, on point 27 on page 7
"In or about August, 1998, Zaentz consented to Miramax's assignment to defendant New Line of Miramax's rights and obligations under the Miramax agreement.

Pursuant to a written agreement effective May 9, 2000 between New Line and Zaentz (the "New Line/Zaentz Agreement"), New Line expressly assumed the obligations to pay plaintiffs their Gross Receipts Participation required by the 1969 Agreements with respect to any films based on the Literary Works produced by or pursuant to the authority of New Line. In sum, UA, Zaentz and Miramax are predecessors in interest of New Line and New Line "stands in their shoes." "

My question then is this. Is the compliant saying that New Line holds all the obligations and rights of the former holders, thus they must be held to them? I would assume that the answer is yes. Thus could you take say that later in the compliant, when the plaintiffs ask the court to rule on whether they have the right to cancel New Line's rights to making films on based on any of the literary works of J.R.R. Tolkien, could the plaintiffs legal team argue that since New Line "stands in their shoes" (UA, Zaentz, Miramax) that this would also cancel the rights of Zaentz and MGM and give the rights back to them, the plaintiffs (especially since Zaentz agreed to to the transfer of rights from Miramax to New Line)? This would allow them to sell the rights again under more profitable terms and thus would be a further punitive damage to the parties concern (in addition to the money NL will have to pay to them)? I guess I'm asking that if a breech by New Line to the agreement, voids the agreement for all parties since New Line is "standing in their shoes?" Can that be argued and if so, what are the chances that a court would do that, restore all rights back to the plaintiffs?

Any clarification would be appreciated.

[Sauron the White]

ArathornJax has asked the jackpot question. And I thank him for making it so clear. I also would like answers on that issue and ask in a slightly different way.

Is it possible that once they get into court (or before for that date) the Estate can make a demand that since Zaentz is the actual rights holder and New Line only a temporary lessee, that Zaentz is somehow someway responsible in the final analysis for making sure that the Estate got their rightful payment?

And .... if Zaentz did not somehow someway make sure that the Estate got their rightful payment then he is just as guilty of not paying the Estate theri rightful cut as New Line is?

And ... the rub would then be ..... take away the rights from not only New Line but also from Zaentz too since he is guilty of not protecting the Estate.

[Mandos Turambar]

Much has been written above about the Plaintiffs seeking to stop any new movie. The odds of this happening through successful litigation are unlikely in any common law court. I have not read which court this suit is in, but essentially all US states and the federal system have a very strong public policy of NOT using equitable orders when the plaintiff can be made whole by contract damages.

The law is divided into multiple areas. For instance, Torts are civil wrongs, such as assault, trespass, slander, etc.., while Contracts are oral or written agreements. Historically, the courts were divided into the law courts and the courts of equity. With limited exceptions, the law courts did not issue orders except for the payment of money, while the equity courts primarily issued orders, generally known as injunctions. In modern practice, these two courts are merged, but the echo of these differences remains.

Essentially all common law jurisdictions (i.e. governments that mainly derive their law from the built up case law of England) follow a rule that says, "when a contract calls for a monetary payment, the relief granted to a plaintiff pleading breach of contract is limited to ascertaining the amount of monetary damages and making an award thereof." In other words, where the plaintiff can be made whole by awarding damages, he/she is not entitled to other relief such as injunctions. This rule is strong, but not absolute. Where fraud (a tort) is properly pled, it can augment the remedies, perhaps leading to injunctions to prohibit further fraud.

However, it appears from the press reports, and what is posted above, that the Tolkien Trust et al. are seeking "rescission" based upon allegations of fraud. This is a very difficult thing, as rescission is used primarily as a remedy for "fraud in the inducement" to enter into the contract - and nothing here would indicate that there is any fraud (if there is) except with regard to New Line's accounting practices (note that I am NOT saying that such allegations are true).

Thus, it is very likely that there is no legal basis for the Tolkien Trust's petition for an order barring further productions. All that is likely is an order that sets forth what the contract means, gives damages for its past breach (if that is found), and perhaps sets forth how it will be interpreted for the future as it applies to the Hobbit.

I'm just a country lawyer, but all this is pretty elementary law...
Then again, Ecclesiastes is right when it says, "One sounds right until another answers." We really have too little information so far, and I cannot wait to hear New Line's response.

[Mandos Turambar]

I am fascinated by some press reports that indicate that NL is planning 2 "Hobbit" movies, one being the story of the Hobbit, and one being the period between the end of the Hobbit and the beginning of LotR.

I expect that this issue will be fiercely litigated by the Tolkien Trust and heirs. I very much hope that we will get to see the rights contract soon (i.e. the one that JRRT signed in '66), as I cannot imagine that he, so jealous of his great creation, would have knowingly transferred creative rights for new story content!

Then again, some published reports long ago indicated that he signed the contract while desperate for $ to pay taxes, and he may not have had adequate legal advice on the implications as well.

Anyone know more on this?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Mandos: at least as alleged in the Complaint, the original 1969 agreements by their own terms provide for recission in the event of material breach.

As for New Line proceeding while this suit is in litigation: how will they get financing? Investors won't touch this with a ten-foot pole until the matter is resolved.