Zaentz countersues the Estate

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

Zaentz produced the baski films in 78 I think that's where they get the forty years

Seriously, Morsul- Baski's Lord of the Rings was responsible for the success of the novel? C'mon!

[William Cloud Hicklin]

This is after all Saul Zaentz we're talking about- underhanded and sleazy even by Hollywood's non-standards.

[Elemmakil]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

This is after all Saul Zaentz we're talking about- underhanded and sleazy even by Hollywood's non-standards.

Quite an understatement. On Zaentz's Wiki page, mention is made of him taking legal action against businesses in the UK that use the name "Hobbit" in any fashion. This is similar to the action taken against Shire Post Mint over the excellent LoTR/Hobbit/Silm. coins they produced several years back. Zaentz really is a bully, and I wish he would reunite with his master Morgoth, sooner rather than later...

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Elemmakil

Quite an understatement. On Zaentz's Wiki page, mention is made of him taking legal action against businesses in the UK that use the name "Hobbit" in any fashion. This is similar to the action taken against Shire Post Mint over the excellent LoTR/Hobbit/Silm. coins they produced several years back. Zaentz really is a bully, and I wish he would reunite with his master Morgoth, sooner rather than later...

I feel like a broken record, but that sort of thing is exactly what I feared when all the movie-hype began flaring up prior to PJ's films. I never wanted Tolkien's works to be subjected to such indignities; modern marketing treats all artistic works equally as tools for profit. I don't particularly blame Zaentz, since I am certain whatever corporation with the movie rights would act much the same. It really is a shame though to see beloved books treasured less for intrinsic literary merit than for commercial potential.

[Mithalwen]

It seems unbelievable that they think they have rights to things that didn't exist at the time of the contract..

[PrinceOfTheHalflings]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I feel like a broken record, but that sort of thing is exactly what I feared when all the movie-hype began flaring up prior to PJ's films. I never wanted Tolkien's works to be subjected to such indignities; modern marketing treats all artistic works equally as tools for profit. I don't particularly blame Zaentz, since I am certain whatever corporation with the movie rights would act much the same. It really is a shame though to see beloved books treasured less for intrinsic literary merit than for commercial potential.

Zaentz has owned the movie rights since c. 1976 - and certainly sued various people long before PJ's films were a twinkle in PJ's eye.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by PrinceOfTheHalflings

Zaentz has owned the movie rights since c. 1976 - and certainly sued various people long before PJ's films were a twinkle in PJ's eye.

Yes, if you recall years ago Zaentz sued Gary Gygax and Dungeons & Dragons over its use of the word "hobbit". D&D had to change the name of the game characters to "halflings".

It's also notable that Zaentz's music company managed to purloin all the publishing rights of Creedence Clearwater Revival. Zaentz sued John Fogerty (the leader of CCR and writer of all its hit songs) when Fogerty released a solo album. Zaentz in effect sued Fogerty for plagiarizing himself, which led Fogerty to write a song with the lyrics "Zanz can't dance, but he can steal your money."

Naturally, Zaentz sued Fogerty again for defamation of character.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

And what's really pathetic is the fact that Zaentz has made many times as much money off the movies as Tolkien's family, without having to lift a finger.


---------

Zaentz in effect sued Fogerty for plagiarizing himself

It was worse than that: Zaentz sued Fogerty for sounding like himself, on the grounds that Zaentz owned the IP rights to CCR's distinctive sound.

[Morsul the Dark]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Seriously, Morsul- Baski's Lord of the Rings was responsible for the success of the novel? C'mon!

I said no such thing, I said that's where the four decades comment was established.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

I said no such thing, I said that's where the four decades comment was established.

Yes, but- well, see my original comment. They're claiming it's "largely"" due to their efforts "over four decades". As the books were certainly famous and popular before the Jackson films, it follows that they must be talking about earlier adaptations or what-have-you (and associated marketing).

[Morsul the Dark]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Yes, but- well, see my original comment. They're claiming that the fame and success of the Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit are "largely" due to their efforts "over four decades". As these were certainly famous and popular books before the Jackson films, it follows that they must be attributing their success to earlier adaptations or what-have-you.

They are they're claiming the popularity was maintained through films ec starting with the Bashki films in 78. I didn't say they were right, or that I even agree. I'm just saying That's the case they're trying to build.

Frankly I think they'll do pretty well considering the dominance over culture Television and film have had over the past 50-60 years. I don't think it's too hard a sell to say the films are more popular than the book. Like I said I don't agree, but they only need to get 12 couch potatoes on a jury to agree...

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

They are they're claiming the popularity was maintained through films ec starting with the Bashki films in 78. I didn't say they were right, or that I even agree. I'm just saying That's the case they're trying to build.

Frankly I think they'll do pretty well considering the dominance over culture Television and film have had over the past 50-60 years. I don't think it's too hard a sell to say the films are more popular than the book. Like I said I don't agree, but they only need to get 12 couch potatoes on a jury to agree...

And I'm saying I think it's a pretty hard case to build since as far as I know none of the previous adaptions had any great success. And generally a main reason for a novel to be considered worth adapting is that it is already popular. Hollywood isn't likely to show much interest in the film rights to a book no-one's ever heard of.

[Morsul the Dark]

I wish I could say I agreed with you.... But people don't buy toys for books...

I'm reminded of that scene in Spaceballs,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNZove4OTtI

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

I wish I could say I agreed with you.... But people don't buy toys for books...

I'm reminded of that scene in Spaceballs,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNZove4OTtI

Yet they do form literary societies to perpetuate the popularity of books. And many of the societies do have online shops and events where members may buy paraphernalia associated with their author and even engage in a bit of masquerade.

There are Bronte and Austen dolls, based on the books and not the movies. And to name just some of the societies--the Tolkien Society (tee shirts and mugs if you please), Bronte Society (mugs, calendars, cards, ties--yes, that actually are printed with "BS" on them), Austen Society (mugs, jewellery, calendars, cards, thimbles, chocolates), Browning Society, Baker Street Irregulars (all kinds of Sherlockiana), The Dickens Fellowship (what hath Tiny Tim wrought for our Christmases!), H G Wells Society, Lewis Carroll Society of North America, The Ghost Story Society, Robert Louis Stevenson Club (pubs, bars, games (board and video)* and even a Mr. Hyde doll). etc. etc. etc.

Some of these groups produce just journals; others hold annual events with speakers, performances musical and dramatical, walks and talks, costume events. They may not engage with the likes of Burger King to produce stuff, and they may not number in the millions, but most are devoted to their authors and they do represent a kind of literary fandom.

EDIT: *To be correct, the RLS Club does not sell these items but rather lists them under the category of "Unclassified Artefacts" in "Derivative Works on RLS"

[Nerwen]

I don't think that's the point.

[Nerwen]

What I'm saying is, it certainly seems that Zaentz Co did little that would have contributed to the "fame and goodwill" of the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit "brand" prior to the Jackson films- yes, even as a purely commercial property.

[Ardent]

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

They are they're claiming the popularity was maintained through films ec starting with the Bashki films in 78. I didn't say they were right, or that I even agree. I'm just saying That's the case they're trying to build.
...

I don't think their case should be taken seriously either. I remember seeing the Bashki film and it certainly did not inspire me to buy the book.

The only thing they might actually be responsible for is unintelligible anime

.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

What I'm saying is, it certainly seems that Zaentz Co did little that would have contributed to the "fame and goodwill" of the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit "brand" prior to the Jackson films

Or after, either: all Zaentz did was accept a check from the Weinstein brothers for the privilege of making the movies (which the Ws subsequently sold along to New Line in exchange for a cut, ultimately making themselves a pile). ZaentzCo contributed pretty much zip-point-zilch, not even Miramax' sunk pre-production costs.

The notion that the Estate and the Tolkien name somehow benefited from "good will" generated by bobbleheads and Burger King cups is beyond risible.

[Galadriel55]

Seriously? Can't they live a few months without suing each other?