Zaentz countersues the Estate

[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.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by 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.

This is my view as well. Surely the Bakshi cartoon and some licensed games did not account for the majority of "Tolkien awareness" during the period prior to the release of the New Line films. Indeed it would seem to me that beyond the existing enduring popularity of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings it would have been Christopher Tolkien's publication of material such as The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales and The History of Middle-earth series which would have contributed the most to continued awareness prior to the New Line films, which would put things more in the domain of the Estate over the majority of those "four decades".

[Nerwen]

And again- as for the general contention that film/TV fandom comes first- well, there is a reason Hollywood does so darned much of this book-to-film stuff, Morsul. As I said, a book without a significant existing audience and/or reputation rarely makes it to the screen in the first place.

[Inziladun]

If I needed another factor to make me shy away from the movies, and the cynically crass marketing gimmickry that follows them like flies to a dunghill, I now have it.

[Morsul the Dark]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

And again- as for the general contention that film/TV fandom comes first- well, there is a reason Hollywood does so darned much of this book-to-film stuff, Morsul. As I said, a book without a significant existing audience and/or reputation rarely makes it to the screen in the first place.

Are we playing WW right now? My head hurts the same way....

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm explaining the defense Zainst is putting together. I again never said they were correct in their assertions.

[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?

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

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

Let us not forget we're talking about the man who sued John Fogerty of Creedence Clearwater Revival for plagiarizing himself (and lost). Nice fellow.