Christopher Tolkien: kill HOBBIT film - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Sauron the White · 06-04-2008, 05:40 AM

I did not think we were debating the merits of high tax versus low tax. In fact, I thought there was a strict policy here of NOT discussing political issues and keeping it on point of Tolkien and his creations. I am not a British citizen and have no opinion on their tax system, its history or its application and impact. All I know, and what I have stated, is that every citizen has to pay their taxes just like any other expense.

There is a obvious undercurrent here in some posts which more or less go like this:

The evil , terrible, opressive government used their coercive state powers to force kindly, old JRRT into a no-win spot putting a gun to his head forcing him to unwillingly sell film rights to a bunch of satanic pirates who then destroyed the heart and soul of his work making movies we now hate.

Its really a bit silly.

William Cloud Hicklin · 06-04-2008, 06:10 AM

Quote:

There is a obvious undercurrent here in some posts which more or less go like this:

The evil , terrible, opressive government used their coercive state powers to force kindly, old JRRT into a no-win spot putting a gun to his head forcing him to unwillingly sell film rights to a bunch of satanic pirates who then destroyed the heart and soul of his work making movies we now hate.

Undercurrent?

Mithalwen · 06-04-2008, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

I

The evil , terrible, opressive government used their coercive state powers to force kindly, old JRRT into a no-win spot putting a gun to his head forcing him to unwillingly sell film rights to a bunch of satanic pirates who then destroyed the heart and soul of his work making movies we now hate.

Its really a bit silly.

No, the only undercurrent is some of us like to put the record straight.... you make unfounded accusations such as Tolkien was financially profligate with only genaralities like "we all have to pay tax". Then when those of us who are British citizens, accountants, lawyers point out the facts we are some how contravening Downs rules.

Stating historical fact is not political ... I very much doubt that referring to forty year old fiscal legislation will get me banned but you are welcome to try. Just don't pin some secret agenda from your own imagination on me.

Sauron the White · 06-04-2008, 07:40 AM

Mith - you do tend to overstate the point.
Trying to get you banned? Invited to try? Absurd. I am simply sick and tired of every once in a while voicing an opinion on some currents events topic and then I get the obligitory slap on the wrist message or post from a moderator saying in no uncertain terms that such discussion is not welcome here and take it elsewhere. If I did bother to take a day or two and educate myself to the history, advantages and disadvantages of the British tax system and then posted factual information to rebutt what you or others posted, there would follow a stern posting from a moderator saying this is not the place for it. So what would be the point of that? But a discussion about film rights becomes a cause for the anti-government crowd to bash taxation policy.

That is not the issue and never has been the issue.

Was this British tax law passed with JRRTolkien as its only target or was this a law which applied to the entire populace of Great Britain who earned those levels of income? Thats all I need to know.

I am not making judgments about how Tolkien spent his money. It was his to spend how he wanted. WCH mentioned his purchase of a more expensive house at the time he owed the tax. Carpenter, in his biography of JRRT, states that Edith wanted a better place to be with people of the class she believed she had attained.

Again, there is a clear undercurrent at work here. People who hate the movies for their own reasons seem to cringe when they are reminded that JRRT freely sold those rights without any artistic control of his own over how they were used. Tolkien was a willingly participant in allowing anyone with that license to make whatever changes to his work they so wanted to make. He knew that when he signed the contract and cashed the check.

But now, its because something of a minor cause here to puff out your Purist chest and flail away at the films and cry to the heavens that poor old JRRT was literally forced to sell those rights by the mean old government and it really is not his fault for doing so. The poor old man was mugged in the alleyway.

Gimmeabreak.

ArathornJax · 06-08-2008, 08:27 PM

Over at theonering.net it is reported that one or both of the parties refused to agree to the court's request to continue the case management on June 27th. Here is the link and the quote. Just so you know based on the posters previous posts I believe that they are a lawyer but not out of California. They say:

"Apparently, one or both of the parties refused to agree to the court's request to continue the case management conference to June 27, the date the court wants the hearing on New Line's Demurrer and Motion to Strike (currently set for 6/24) to be held. It appears that the case management conference did occur as scheduled on Friday, June 6. The court's website now shows that a trial date has been set, for October 19, 2009. It is scheduled to be a jury trial, with a 15-20 day time estimate. The court also scheduled two more status conferences, for December 8, 2008 and October 9, 2009.

I should caution that it is very common for trial dates to get continued, so there is no guarantee at all that the trial will happen then, even if the case does not settle for then. And there will be a lot more legal manuevering between now and then."

Here is the court site for this case:

http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civil...CaseType=Civil

You'll need the case number which is BC385294

TheGreatElvenWarrior · 06-08-2008, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

And I shouldn't have read the article in the first place. Aragorn? If that's true, I suggest building up a process against them. And the second film? Horrifying just to think of it. (If anyone feels offended, it's just my personal opinion, and seriously, a honest Tolkien fan can't stand back in such a case of blasphemy - it's immoral!)

Oh, how terrible! Horrible really... TH has NO Aragorn, there is NO second book!... They'll probably put Legolas in there too... I am sorry, but this really makes me mad... but if TH comes out in movie form then I will go to see it, my school mates will mad at me three weeks later when I am still complaining about it... But if it DOES come out in 2011, then I will be a junior in high school... That seems far off...

But Tolkien selling the rights for his books to be made into movies was his choice and he did it, so there really shouldn't be an argument about whether he should've done it or not... as was said before, he was a grown man and could make his own decisions... and it seems for a good reason too!

ArathornJax · 06-08-2008, 11:14 PM

Brad D. Brian who is representing the New Line/Time Warner. Not sure if any cares but I think he has a pretty impressive resume: Brad D. Brian

Here is the link to the Tolkien Estate Lawyer and she also is equally impressive. I'll add a note to below: Bonnie Eskenazi

Ms. Eskenazi is noted for some worth while items (she is out of Stanford Law School I believe):

Her first listing is the TE lawsuit and it states, "the Estate is seeking a damage award of at least $150 million and has also requested that the Court declare New Line’s rights terminated."

I've studied this case for fun of it: Bagdasarian Productions v. Universal Studios Successfully obtained the return of the "Alvin & The Chipmunks" characters to the original owners from a major motion picture studio.

Hmm, does the Chipmunk sound similar to the above statement on New Line losing righs? Universal had made movies and sold them on DVD etc for many years and then yank, the rights were pulled. This was based on a breach of contract also.

DIC Entertainment v. Speed Racer Enterprises: Successfully represented the children's animation company in an action concerning its intellectual property rights in the "Speed Racer" property

Stephen Slesinger Inc. v. The Walt Disney Co.: Represented the owners of rights in Winnie The Pooh in their action against Disney for fraud and breach of contract relating to Disney's obligation to pay royalties

want to do something fun, research the Pooh Lawsuit(s) that goes back to the 1980's and is still on going. Wikipedia has a quick overview with some links to papers if you don't want to look at papers, journals and legal case studies.

• Hans Zimmer v. The Walt Disney Co.: Successfully represented the Oscar-winning composer of "The Lion King" against Disney for failure to properly pay contractually required royalties for Disney's use of the "The Lion King" film score in a legitimate theatrical production

Her experience goes both ways and I have to say that I think were in for a roller coaster ride up and down. I truly hope that Time Warner does the right thing and pay what is truly due to the Estate.

davem · 06-08-2008, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArathornJax

Her experience goes both ways and I have to say that I think were in for a roller coaster ride up and down. .

Well - yesterday's Sunday Times speculated it might get nasty (second story on page) http://entertainment.timesonline.co....cle4072239.ece

06-04-2008, 07:40 AM	#4
Sauron the White Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 903	Mith - you do tend to overstate the point. Trying to get you banned? Invited to try? Absurd. I am simply sick and tired of every once in a while voicing an opinion on some currents events topic and then I get the obligitory slap on the wrist message or post from a moderator saying in no uncertain terms that such discussion is not welcome here and take it elsewhere. If I did bother to take a day or two and educate myself to the history, advantages and disadvantages of the British tax system and then posted factual information to rebutt what you or others posted, there would follow a stern posting from a moderator saying this is not the place for it. So what would be the point of that? But a discussion about film rights becomes a cause for the anti-government crowd to bash taxation policy. That is not the issue and never has been the issue. Was this British tax law passed with JRRTolkien as its only target or was this a law which applied to the entire populace of Great Britain who earned those levels of income? Thats all I need to know. I am not making judgments about how Tolkien spent his money. It was his to spend how he wanted. WCH mentioned his purchase of a more expensive house at the time he owed the tax. Carpenter, in his biography of JRRT, states that Edith wanted a better place to be with people of the class she believed she had attained. Again, there is a clear undercurrent at work here. People who hate the movies for their own reasons seem to cringe when they are reminded that JRRT freely sold those rights without any artistic control of his own over how they were used. Tolkien was a willingly participant in allowing anyone with that license to make whatever changes to his work they so wanted to make. He knew that when he signed the contract and cashed the check. But now, its because something of a minor cause here to puff out your Purist chest and flail away at the films and cry to the heavens that poor old JRRT was literally forced to sell those rights by the mean old government and it really is not his fault for doing so. The poor old man was mugged in the alleyway. Gimmeabreak. Last edited by Sauron the White; 06-04-2008 at 08:02 AM.

06-08-2008, 08:27 PM	#5
ArathornJax Haunting Spirit Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Out West near a Big Salty Lake Posts: 76	Tolkien Lawsuit Going to Trial Over at theonering.net it is reported that one or both of the parties refused to agree to the court's request to continue the case management on June 27th. Here is the link and the quote. Just so you know based on the posters previous posts I believe that they are a lawyer but not out of California. They say: "Apparently, one or both of the parties refused to agree to the court's request to continue the case management conference to June 27, the date the court wants the hearing on New Line's Demurrer and Motion to Strike (currently set for 6/24) to be held. It appears that the case management conference did occur as scheduled on Friday, June 6. The court's website now shows that a trial date has been set, for October 19, 2009. It is scheduled to be a jury trial, with a 15-20 day time estimate. The court also scheduled two more status conferences, for December 8, 2008 and October 9, 2009. I should caution that it is very common for trial dates to get continued, so there is no guarantee at all that the trial will happen then, even if the case does not settle for then. And there will be a lot more legal manuevering between now and then." Here is the court site for this case: http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civil...CaseType=Civil You'll need the case number which is BC385294 __________________ "At any minute it is what we are and are doing, not what we plan to be and do that counts." JRR Tolkien in 6 October 1940 letter to Michael Tolkien Last edited by ArathornJax; 06-08-2008 at 09:12 PM.

06-08-2008, 11:14 PM	#7
ArathornJax Haunting Spirit Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Out West near a Big Salty Lake Posts: 76	Meet the Lawyers Brad D. Brian who is representing the New Line/Time Warner. Not sure if any cares but I think he has a pretty impressive resume: Brad D. Brian Here is the link to the Tolkien Estate Lawyer and she also is equally impressive. I'll add a note to below: Bonnie Eskenazi Ms. Eskenazi is noted for some worth while items (she is out of Stanford Law School I believe): Her first listing is the TE lawsuit and it states, "the Estate is seeking a damage award of at least $150 million and has also requested that the Court declare New Line’s rights terminated." I've studied this case for fun of it: Bagdasarian Productions v. Universal Studios Successfully obtained the return of the "Alvin & The Chipmunks" characters to the original owners from a major motion picture studio. Hmm, does the Chipmunk sound similar to the above statement on New Line losing righs? Universal had made movies and sold them on DVD etc for many years and then yank, the rights were pulled. This was based on a breach of contract also. DIC Entertainment v. Speed Racer Enterprises: Successfully represented the children's animation company in an action concerning its intellectual property rights in the "Speed Racer" property Stephen Slesinger Inc. v. The Walt Disney Co.: Represented the owners of rights in Winnie The Pooh in their action against Disney for fraud and breach of contract relating to Disney's obligation to pay royalties want to do something fun, research the Pooh Lawsuit(s) that goes back to the 1980's and is still on going. Wikipedia has a quick overview with some links to papers if you don't want to look at papers, journals and legal case studies. • Hans Zimmer v. The Walt Disney Co.: Successfully represented the Oscar-winning composer of "The Lion King" against Disney for failure to properly pay contractually required royalties for Disney's use of the "The Lion King" film score in a legitimate theatrical production Her experience goes both ways and I have to say that I think were in for a roller coaster ride up and down. I truly hope that Time Warner does the right thing and pay what is truly due to the Estate. __________________ "At any minute it is what we are and are doing, not what we plan to be and do that counts." JRR Tolkien in 6 October 1940 letter to Michael Tolkien

06-04-2008, 05:40 AM	#1
Sauron the White Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 903	I did not think we were debating the merits of high tax versus low tax. In fact, I thought there was a strict policy here of NOT discussing political issues and keeping it on point of Tolkien and his creations. I am not a British citizen and have no opinion on their tax system, its history or its application and impact. All I know, and what I have stated, is that every citizen has to pay their taxes just like any other expense. There is a obvious undercurrent here in some posts which more or less go like this: The evil , terrible, opressive government used their coercive state powers to force kindly, old JRRT into a no-win spot putting a gun to his head forcing him to unwillingly sell film rights to a bunch of satanic pirates who then destroyed the heart and soul of his work making movies we now hate. Its really a bit silly.