Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - Part 17

[Kahran Ramsus]

I completely understand how Christopher Tolkien feels. You can certainly make the argument, and it is probably accurate, that the film medium cannot do these stories justice.

However, my opinion as a fan is that these films have brought Tolkien to many people who would otherwise have never bothered. I'll be honest, I only ever picked up the books and read them because the films were coming out back in 2001. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Plus, the LOTR movies were simply great films that brought many innovations to the industry in the terms of special effects and credibility to the fantasy genre in general. So I'm personally glad they were made.

 

[terry78]

I respect guys like Tolkien and Alan Moore and what not because on the one hand I think they feel they don't want to sell out the source material, but on the other hand they come off insanely misanthropic about it which kind of negates the other side of the coin.

 

[InCali]

I completely understand how Christopher Tolkien feels. You can certainly make the argument, and it is probably accurate, that the film medium cannot do these stories justice.

However, my opinion as a fan is that these films have brought Tolkien to many people who would otherwise have never bothered. I'll be honest, I only ever picked up the books and read them because the films were coming out back in 2001. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Plus, the LOTR movies were simply great films that brought many innovations to the industry in the terms of special effects and credibility to the fantasy genre in general. So I'm personally glad they were made.

Yes, I suppose it's true that the movies brought Tolkien to many who might not have otherwise bothered, but, the question remains, "To what extent was he brought to people?" IMO, LotR (movie) was much better than The Hobbit, but it wasn't what it could have been. If LotR had been more in line with the Tolkien's family (Christopher???) wishes, perhaps The Silmarillion could have made it to the screen. We'll never know for sure how that would have worked out.

When I first read the book during my college days, I was so taken with it that I read it in a single weekend; taking only the time to eat and sleep (a little). So, my perspective is probably quite different than most other's. I'd love to see a "true" history of middle earth on screen, but if it's going to end up like The Hobbit, it should probably stay on the written page.

 

[Vartha]

God's I want to badly go out and drink with you Guys and Gals lol

 

[Roose Bolton]

Yes, I suppose it's true that the movies brought Tolkien to many who might not have otherwise bothered, but, the question remains, "To what extent was he brought to people?" IMO, LotR (movie) was much better than The Hobbit, but it wasn't what it could have been. If LotR had been more in line with the Tolkien's family (Christopher???) wishes, perhaps The Silmarillion could have made it to the screen. We'll never know for sure how that would have worked out.

When I first read the book during my college days, I was so taken with it that I read it in a single weekend; taking only the time to eat and sleep (a little). So, my perspective is probably quite different than most other's. I'd love to see a "true" history of middle earth on screen, but if it's going to end up like The Hobbit, it should probably stay on the written page.

Put it this way, if LOTR got everything 100% from the books and were 6 hours long each, the best you'd get from Christopher would be a shrug. It's not like these things could have changed his mind on that. I don't begrudge him those views, but just like Alan Moore with Watchmen, I think they're pretty resolute.

 

[Brother Jack]

Put it this way, if LOTR got everything 100% from the books and were 6 hours long each, the best you'd get from Christopher would be a shrug. It's not like these things could have changed his mind on that. I don't begrudge him those views, but just like Alan Moore with Watchmen, I think they're pretty resolute.

The difference there is that Tolkien's work has been made into great cinema. Not so with Watchmen or most of Moore's stuff. V For Vendetta is maybe the best and, while good, is not at the level of Jackon's LOTR.

 

[Roose Bolton]

Well that, and Moore is a legitimate misanthrope

 

[redhawk23]

The difference there is that Tolkien's work has been made into great cinema. Not so with Watchmen or most of Moore's stuff. V For Vendetta is maybe the best and, while good, is not at the level of Jackon's LOTR.

Its not as if the source materials were on level either though.

 

[jmc]

Chris Tolkien is entitled to preserve his fathers stories for as long as he can. I understand the fans desire to return to Middle Earth on film but sometimes you just have to accept the owners wishes, it's their creation and they are entitled to do whatever they want with it. We've more or less exhausted all possible Middle Earth stories for film for the foreseeable future, neither LOTR or the Hobbit is going to be done again anytime soon and those are the only stories from the Tolkien library available to use. Given Chris Tolkien had a hand in publishing and creating the posthumous works of his father means he has copyright ownership over the material, and with his stance against more movies being made it's a likely possibility that Middle Earth won't be visited again on film in our lifetime

 

[Roose Bolton]

Well, assuming that there are no great leaps in modern medicine, and that war or natural disaster doesn't get me first, then I've got another 70 odd years for there to be another Middle-Earth film.

A lot can happen in 70 years.

 

[craigdbfan]

Chris Tolkien is 90 years old and what the estate does after that is a bit of a mystery, is it not? I'm sure WB waving big $$ would be able to persuade them.

 

[jmc]

Chris Tolkien is 90 years old and what the estate does after that is a bit of a mystery, is it not? I'm sure WB waving big $$ would be able to persuade them.

I really don't think it's that simple. Chris Tolkien has it probably written in his will about who the work passes to and what is to be done with it. If they respect his wishes no amount of money will change that, all of us here will be long gone by the time the copyright term on the works expires.

 

[craigdbfan]

Hmm I see. Something along the lines of what J.D Salinger did with The Catcher in the Rye. Nobody will ever adapt the story onto film and that to me is insane. I guess The Silmarillion will go down that same road.

 

[jmc]

Possibly. Things can change of course, but it's been such a public display of rejection to his fathers work for the last 15 years that it's hard to see his family going against his wishes when he eventually passes away. At the end of the day this is a very personal decision we're dealing with and I think people have to remember that. This isn't like DC or Marvel or Disney, faceless companies who own the properties, this is very much a family owned property.

 

[craigdbfan]

Word. By the look of things it will go the Salinger route. I respect their decisions but I'd be lying to you if I said I didn't want WB and another director/creative team tackling the Silmarillion which I do think is filmable if tackled correctly.

 

[regwec]

Without Christopher Tolkien, I don't think there would have been a published Silmarillion and, certainly, not the one we have now. For that, I thank him.

We almost certainly wouldn't have LOTR in the same form, either: JRR tells us in one of his prefaces that Christopher routinely read drafts, criticised them and made recommendations via correspondence while he was fighting abroad in WWII.

I speculate, but it is possible that, without Christopher's input, we might have Trotter the Hobbit rather than Strider the Ranger.

If I'm not mistaken he did a full translation of Beowulf. He was quite taken with that tale.

He was Professor of Anglo-Saxon at Oxford University; he would hardly have been qualified for the job if he wasn't taken with Beowulf! His essays on Beowulf were still set reading for the Old English course at Cambridge University ten years ago- I expect they remain widely cited all over the world today.

It is no revelation to say that Tolkien's works were influenced by early English and other European myths and epics- he himself said that was part of the point. Middle Earth and everything in it ultimately stems from his interest in the origins of English words, but also from his desire to weave a kind of "lost mythology" for England. To achieve that, he carefully threaded the imaginative together with the familiar, before applying personal sentiment (hence the distinctly 19th century English Hobbits).

The important point is that the result was something strikingly original, so much so that critics in the 1950s didn't know what to make of it.

I really don't think it's that simple. Chris Tolkien has it probably written in his will about who the work passes to and what is to be done with it. If they respect his wishes no amount of money will change that, all of us here will be long gone by the time the copyright term on the works expires.

That's right, with the caveat that it is impossible to put binding conditions on the use of gift. His wishes would have to be respected as a matter of honour rather than legal obligation.

 

[Eggyman]

I've had The Silmarillion on a shelf for a couple of years. Is it worth the read? I was about to read Last Exit to Brooklyn but can put it off.

 

[redhawk23]

I really don't think it's that simple. Chris Tolkien has it probably written in his will about who the work passes to and what is to be done with it. If they respect his wishes no amount of money will change that, all of us here will be long gone by the time the copyright term on the works expires.

The Hobbit will be public domain by 2032. The Lord of the Rings in the 2050s.

 

[jmc]

I was referring more to the works Chris Tolkien had a hand in himself. He can do squat about the other two stories now. Silmarillion and other stories are off the table for all of us unless he has a change of heart.

 

[redhawk23]

Ah.

 

[craigdbfan]

Yup, JMC is right about that. Assuming the Tolkien estate doesn't sell the rights it wouldn't be until 2072 that the Silmarillion would be public domain.

Like he said, a good portion of us would be long gone. If I were to still be alive I would be 81 years old. Goodness.

 

[regwec]

The Hobbit will be public domain by 2032. The Lord of the Rings in the 2050s.

How do you work that out? It's 70 years from the author's death, not 100 years from publication.

 

[craigdbfan]

How do you work that out? It's 70 years from the author's death, not 100 years from publication.

Anything published pre 1978 has only 28 years with an optional renewal of 67 years I believe. The Silmarillion was publish in 1977 so it would be in the public domain in 2072.

 

[jmc]

Yup, JMC is right about that. Assuming the Tolkien estate doesn't sell the rights it wouldn't be until 2072 that the Silmarillion would be public domain.

Like he said, a good portion of us would be long gone. If I were to still be alive I would be 81 years old. Goodness.

I'll be pushing 90. Or pushing daisies. One of the two lol.

 

[redhawk23]

Depends on the country. In Canada and several countries that have not added to the minimum outlined in the Berne Convention, JRR Tolkien's works will become public domain in the year following the 50th anniversary of his death, so 2024.

The different dates allotted by different countries is odd and raises interesting questions.

For instance, James Bond is now public domain in several countries. Canadian publishers can print Fleming's books. Canadian TV channels and movie studios can make new adaptations but what happens when any of those become available outside of Canada or are online?