|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
burrahobbit
Nargothrond
Dec 11 2008, 4:24pm
Post #26 of 49
(992 views)
Shortcut
|
I understood the "pentology" comments as a reassurance for Lord of the Rings fans that they are really going to enjoy the The Hobbit films. The extent to which that implies "bridge film" elements is difficult to say.
If they do want to make a seamless five films then some explanation of Bilbo's adoption of Frodo would make the most sense, as this would link the protagonists of the two stories. Not that I'm necessarily sure that would be the right decision, it's just that story wise it's a more obvious link than for example Aragorn and the Dunedain.
View my Hobbit Film Adaptation Discussion
|
|
|
burrahobbit
Nargothrond
Dec 11 2008, 4:28pm
Post #27 of 49
(1020 views)
Shortcut
|
Jackson and Del Toro (along with Weta/Boyens/Walsh etc) are central to the project. If you lose that team then you probably lose the cast and then it all collapses.
A bridge film could only be a money making vehicle so long as the talent was there to deliver it. I mean, was the Rankin and Bass Lord of the Rings a money spinner?
View my Hobbit Film Adaptation Discussion
(This post was edited by burrahobbit on Dec 11 2008, 4:35pm)
|
|
|
Darkstone
Elvenhome
Dec 11 2008, 4:43pm
Post #28 of 49
(993 views)
Shortcut
|
It will be a franchise film. It will have built in audience recognition. Huge recognition. It will be any studio's dream. Lots of follow up films have been made without any participation whatsoever from the previous actors or production team. And they usually end up making money. The bridge film will be made. It simply can't *not* be made. Any studio will look at it as a license to print money.
And the Rankin and Bass Lord of the Rings *was* made, wasn't it? And it's been re-released on dvd. So it's *still* making money! A franchise is forever.
******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”
(This post was edited by Darkstone on Dec 11 2008, 4:48pm)
|
|
|
burrahobbit
Nargothrond
Dec 11 2008, 5:29pm
Post #29 of 49
(1007 views)
Shortcut
|
Your argument that Jackson and Del Toro "must make the bridge film" still doesn't make any sense to me. PJ and GDT should adapt the Hobbit in the best way they possibly can. They shouldn't base their decisions on what some cynical producer might or might not decide to do in the future. (Advocating PJ and GDT to make a bridge film is rather a moot point anyway, as GDT has refused to consider a third Hobbit film and is not keen on bridge ideas, while Jackson seems no longer interested in directing futher Middle Earth movies.)
If someone wants to make a bridge film without any of the original cast and creative team that's fine- it wouldn't be considered as part of the Jackson/Del Toro sequence of films and wouldn't affect them in any way. Given that the bridge film would be about Aragorn and Gandalf, and wouldn't feature Ian McKellan or Viggo Mortensen, then it wouldn't be perceived as being part of the same set of films.
View my Hobbit Film Adaptation Discussion
|
|
|
Darkstone
Elvenhome
Dec 11 2008, 6:15pm
Post #30 of 49
(998 views)
Shortcut
|
Your argument that Jackson and Del Toro "must make the bridge film" still doesn't make any sense to me.
Yes, people often say I am incoherent.
PJ and GDT should adapt the Hobbit in the best way they possibly can.
I agree with this statement.
They shouldn't base their decisions on what some cynical producer might or might not decide to do in the future.
The future is now. Just like with The Hobbit there is a clock ticking on the film rights to the prequel. Unless it gets made soon the rights revert to Saul Zaentz. I don't see New Line allowing that to happen. Again, the bridge film will be made.
(Advocating PJ and GDT to make a bridge film is rather a moot point anyway, as GDT has refused to consider a third Hobbit film and is not keen on bridge ideas, while Jackson seems no longer interested in directing futher Middle Earth movies.)
I would hope Jackson would consider himself a steward of Tolkien, and thus feel some sort of responsibilty to make sure any film adaptation of Tolkien was up to snuff if he had the power to intervene. And he has that power with the bridge film.
Given that the bridge film would be about Aragorn and Gandalf, and wouldn't feature Ian McKellan or Viggo Mortensen, then it wouldn't be perceived as being part of the same set of films.
Perceived by whom? The Rankin/Bass films are sold in a bundle with the Bakshi film. You can bet Sony will bundle the bridge film in a six-film package right between the two part Hobbit film and the LOTR trilogy with extras and ceramic book-ends. We fans can deny the existence of the bridge film, but to everyone else it will be very much a part of the Tolkien cinematic legacy.
To reiterate my position, while some might prefer that someone else make the bridge film, I'd rather it be done by Jackson and delToro.
******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”
|
|
|
nuck
Ossiriand
Dec 11 2008, 6:25pm
Post #31 of 49
(987 views)
Shortcut
|
|
A bridge film with the original cast would make a billion dollars..
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Whether Jackson is associated or not. I think Tim Burton could create something as memorable as anyone. In fact, a different perspective for the bridge might be good. But the thing is PJ and GDT clearly have no interest in a bridge. They have said no to a third film. They have other plans predating the Hobbit project. Their lives are not tied to Middle Earth projects. There is no momentum for a bridge film with a different production team and to work, the writing with the new team would have to start right away.
It is a separate and lesser project that would still require at least three years to complete. Only when The Hobbit is done and it's billions are made will New Line be unable to resist the lure of the insane profits. By that time the LOTR cast will mostly be too old to reprise their younger selves and that would damage any such film a lot more than a change in director. The studio will eventually want that bridge film but without the original cast it would be so much weaker, given The Hobbit would have Gandalf et al fresh in their minds.
|
|
|
simplyaven
Hithlum
Dec 11 2008, 7:58pm
Post #32 of 49
(988 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Easily - I second Darkstone's comments and I don't find burrahobbit's ideas connecting
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The Dunedain and Aragorn, as well as the White Council meetings, Glorfindel, Galadriel, Gandalf's doings, the hunt for the Gollum, etc. can be very easily worked into a story which is not linear but which follows a number of story lines, i.e. a complex story. LOTR is that type of a story. A linear story often looks boring on screen to me. I truly hope GDT will go for a complex narrative. I second Darkstone's comments. There is need for bridge scenes (not movie), bridge story lines to connect the five movies. The things burrahobbit mentioned are not connecting the movies in my mind as a viewer. And I'm a book firster. For movie firster's it will be even a bigger mess. To connect two, three or more movies means to have the same story lines like threads - going from one movie into another. Certainly some of them can be skipped in one movie (the first one) but others have to be there. And vice versa. From a purely cinematographical point of view, it will look rather odd if certain things happen in LOTR out of nowhere for viewers who saw the Hobbit first. They will need introduction itno the story.
Culinary journey through Middle Earth continues! Join us on November 15 on the Main board
I believe
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Doriath
Dec 11 2008, 11:11pm
Post #33 of 49
(1012 views)
Shortcut
|
... that even if GdT/PJ make a two-film Hobbit that incorporates some elements of the LOTR appendices so that they link up with the Jackson LOTR films (which is my understanding of what GdT has been talking about), that someone else would still make a "bridge film"?
If in fact that is what you are saying, I disagree.  (And if that is not what you are saying, can you clarify what it is that you are saying?)
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
|
|
|
Darkstone
Elvenhome
Dec 12 2008, 12:41am
Post #34 of 49
(967 views)
Shortcut
|
As I understand it, Saul Zaentz sold Harvey Weinstein the rights to make:
1. The Lord of the Rings
2. The Hobbit
3. "An original prequel" (I understand that is the wording, not "bridge film".)
That's three entirely different movies or series of movies.
Merely because Jackson made three LOTR films doesn't mean he can't make a film or films out of The Hobbit. The Hobbit is an entirely different property.
And merely because Jackson and DelToro make two films out of The Hobbit doesn't mean "an original prequel" couldn't still be made. "An original prequel" is an entirely different property. Making The Hobbit into one, two, three, or however many different films won't change that.
And I wonder if "an original prequel" couldn't be milked into an ungodly number of direct to video films?
And yes, the "bridge film" *will* be made. Because it *can* be made. Sure it's probably a bad idea, but so was a one film Disney version of LOTR and Weinstein almost did that.
******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”
(This post was edited by Darkstone on Dec 12 2008, 12:47am)
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Doriath
Dec 12 2008, 1:32am
Post #35 of 49
(974 views)
Shortcut
|
As I understand it, Saul Zaentz sold Harvey Weinstein the rights to make:
1. The Lord of the Rings
2. The Hobbit
3. "An original prequel" (I understand that is the wording, not "bridge film".)
That is certainly not my understanding. First of all, Zaentz never sold Weinstein anything. He did grant Miramax (which was run at the time by Weinstein) an option to make films based on the Literary Works (The Hobbit and LOTR) as described in the 1969 agreements between United Artists and Tolkien's representative and his publisher. Miramax then assigned the rights and obligation of that option to New Line. The option expires, I believe, next year. Moreover, Zaentz never even owned the right to distribute films based on The Hobbit. Those rights were retained by UA. Here is the description of the rights granted by the 1969 agreements:
The sole and exclusive right in connection with the making, exhibition and exploitation of said motion picture photoplays to translate into all languages, to freely adapt, change, transpose, revise, rearrange, add to and subtract from the Work or any part thereof and the title, theme, plot, sequences, incidents and characterizations thereof, to make interpolations in and substitutions for any part of parts thereof, to make sequels to and new versions or adaptations of the Work or any part thereof, to use any part or parts of the Work or of the theme thereof or any incidents, characters, character names, scenes, sequences or characterizations therein contained in conjunction with any other work or works, and to separately or cumulatively do any or all of the foregoing, to such extent as the Purchaser, it its sole discretion may deem expedient int eh exercise of any of the rights licenses or privileges herein conveyed and to interpolate in said motion picture photoplays music compositions, gags, lyrics and music of all kinds, to set to music any verse, lyric prose or part or parts of the Work and any characters thereof, and to use, print, reprint, publish, copy or vend such song, and the music and/or lyrics (on film, magnetic tape, wire, record or other reproducing device, whether similar or dissimilar to the foregoing, and whether now or hereafter known), and to perform for profit (or non-profit), arrange, adapt, and exploit same throughout the world and to secure copyright therein throughout the world in Purchaser's name or otherwise, and to use, super-impose and/or photograph lines, excerpts from or translation of such Work for the title, subtitles, text and dialogue of said motion picture photoplays (the foregoing shall not prevent Seller form exercising the rights granted in this subparagraph (b) in connection with the rights reserved by Seller.
This certainly gives the holder of these rights the ability to make an "original prequel" based in part on the LOTR appendices, but there is certainly no specific right to do so. I can't imagine that Zaentz created such a specific right (I don't think that he could legally do so). If you have any link or other information that confirms that what you say is correct, I would certainly be interested in seeing it. But I don't believe that it is true.
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
|
|
|
Darkstone
Elvenhome
Dec 12 2008, 3:05am
Post #36 of 49
(993 views)
Shortcut
|
|
PJ's e-mail to Xoanon for one.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
First of all, Zaentz never sold Weinstein anything. He did grant Miramax (which was run at the time by Weinstein) an option to make films based on the Literary Works (The Hobbit and LOTR) as described in the 1969 agreements between United Artists and Tolkien's representative and his publisher.
There’s a reason why Harvey and Bob Weinstein, not Miramax, are listed as Executive Producers of the LOTR films (and will also be listed as such in The Hobbit). Also why they, and not Miramax, get a cut of the films’ profits. (And of the future profits of The Hobbit.)
The agreement was indeed an agreement based solely upon Saul Zaentz’s personal relationship with Harvey Weinstein. For the longest time had Zaentz refused all offers to make films out of The Hobbit or Lord of the Rings. He supposedly didn’t want to cheapen his brand with another failed LOTR film. Absolutely no one was ever able to convince him to option the rights no matter how much money they offered or how else they sweetened the deal.
Then when Zaentz was about to enter into production of The English Patient his financing fell through at the very last minute. Zaentz had sunk a lot of his own money into the production and so he was looking at financial ruin. But Weinstein (Miramax) stepped in and supplied financing and so saved Zaentz. This was a huge favor. And Zaentz doesn’t ever forget favors. (Of course neither does he forget slights.) Later, when Jackson wanted to make movies out of The Hobbit and LOTR, Harvey Weinstein was the one and only man in all of Hollywood who could have gotten Zaentz to agree to option the film rights. It was done as a personal favor.
Miramax then assigned the rights and obligation of that option to New Line. The option expires, I believe, next year.
Usually the clock on options comes to a stop when a film is “greenlit“; that is, officially receives financing and goes into production. I believe the entire package is tied to one clock, otherwise the option on The Hobbit would have run out long ago. That is, as long as LOTR was in production, the clock on The Hobbit option would come to a stop. Similarly, as long as The Hobbit is in production, it buys time for the “original prequel”.
Moreover, Zaentz never even owned the right to distribute films based on The Hobbit. Those rights were retained by UA.
Actually I understand that Zaentz owned the foreign distribution rights to The Hobbit, which he did grant to Weinstein. United Artists retention of the domestic distribution rights were precisely the reason Jackson skipped making The Hobbit and went straight to LOTR. (At the time Jackson said he was rather relieved since he felt the storyline of The Hobbit was too simple and linear to be artistically interesting.) Ironically, back then the main sticking point that nixed any agreement between UA/MGM and Miramax over The Hobbit was which company would be responsible for covering the losses if the film bombed. Needless to say, that doesn’t seem to be a concern with the present agreement.
(Strangely enough, I’ve heard that the current agreement between UA/MGM and New Line assigns UA/MGM the foreign distribution and New Line the domestic distribution. Which makes sense inasmuch as New Line is better at better domestic distribution and UA/MGM is better positioned with the foreign distribution.)
Here is the description of the rights granted by the 1969 agreements.
Actually I think the wording of the 1997 agreement between Miramax (Weinstein) and Tolkien Enterprises (Zaentz) and the 1998 agreement between Miramax (Weinstein) and New Line would be more pertinent.
If you have any link or other information that confirms that what you say is correct, I would certainly be interested in seeing it.
This is one of those things that have been common knowledge for a very long time. For example:
“New Line may just toss a few new Rings titles out there. It has production rights to Tolkien's original Middle-earth tale, The Hobbit, although the situation is complicated by MGM/UA's distribution ownership. "There's a reasonable possibility that we can negotiate an arrangement," New Line co-chairman Bob Shaye says.
“The studio also has the rights to create its own original prequel or sequel to The Lord of the Rings, but would pursue the projects only if Jackson would be involved again.”
-USA Today, 1/20/2004
And then there’s Jackson’s own letter to the fans of November 19, 2006, as published on this very site:
‘Several years ago, Mark Ordesky told us that New Line have rights to make not just The Hobbit but a second “LOTR prequel”, covering the events leading up to those depicted in LOTR. Since then, we’ve always assumed that we would be asked to make The Hobbit and possibly this second film, back to back, as we did the original movies.”
But I don't believe that it is true.
As gramma always says, “Trust PJ!“
******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”
|
|
|
AinurOlorin
Gondolin
Dec 12 2008, 6:22am
Post #37 of 49
(950 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Its so vexing I must make a new thread.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
And thank you son of Gondor, for your understanding. An fragmented Hobbit is a notion that troubles me. I will post on it seperately, that we might approach it with proper gravitas. 
"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"
"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Doriath
Dec 12 2008, 6:58am
Post #38 of 49
(1192 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'm Afraid That's Not At All Convincing
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
In fact, from a legal point of view, your comments convince me that I am correct.
Here is the description of the rights granted by the 1969 agreements.
Actually I think the wording of the 1997 agreement between Miramax (Weinstein) and Tolkien Enterprises (Zaentz) and the 1998 agreement between Miramax (Weinstein) and New Line would be more pertinent. Actually, not really. The 1969 agreements define the rights that Zaentz held, which limits what he was able to pass on to Weinstein/Miramax and subsequently to New Line. Even without having the other agreements in front of me, I know as an attorney what it is that Zaentz could and could not agree to licence. That's pretty basic. Of course, if you can get your hands on the 97 and 98 agreements I will look at them, but I am quite confident that Zaentz did not attempt to make up rights that he did not actually have and try to market them. He is too much of a pro, and more importantly, he has attorneys that know what they are doing.
If you have any link or other information that confirms that what you say is correct, I would certainly be interested in seeing it.
This is one of those things that have been common knowledge for a very long time. For example:
“New Line may just toss a few new Rings titles out there. It has production rights to Tolkien's original Middle-earth tale, The Hobbit, although the situation is complicated by MGM/UA's distribution ownership. "There's a reasonable possibility that we can negotiate an arrangement," New Line co-chairman Bob Shaye says.
“The studio also has the rights to create its own original prequel or sequel to The Lord of the Rings, but would pursue the projects only if Jackson would be involved again.”
-USA Today, 1/20/2004 You see, this actually confirms what I am saying, even though it is typically mangled media-speak. Note that the article doesn't just say that the studio has the rights to make an original prequel. It says "original prequel or sequel." That language is a water down version of the legalese that I quoted from the 1969 agreement. If there were a specific agreement that studio had the right to make an "original prequel" separate from the rights to make films based on the rights to The Hobbit and LOTR, that's what it would say. But it doesn't, and it shouldn't, because from legal point of view, it wouldn't make any sense. And then there’s Jackson’s own letter to the fans of November 19, 2006, as published on this very site:
‘Several years ago, Mark Ordesky told us that New Line have rights to make not just The Hobbit but a second “LOTR prequel”, covering the events leading up to those depicted in LOTR. Since then, we’ve always assumed that we would be asked to make The Hobbit and possibly this second film, back to back, as we did the original movies.”
But I don't believe that it is true.
As gramma always says, “Trust PJ!“ Well, I would say that I would trust PJ as a filmmaker, but that's not entirely true either (although it's more true than for some, like our N.E.Brigand). But in any case I don't trust him to understand the legal issues. It sounds like he was just parroting something that he heard, or twisting it around. Unless you can show me some kind of agreement that Zaentz entered into that specifies rights different than those defined by the 1969 agreements (which I don't believe is possible), I'm afraid I'm not going to believe that such rights actually exist. If there is one thing that I have learned as an attorney, it is that things that "have been common knowledge for a long time" often prove to be untrue.
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Gondolin
Dec 12 2008, 7:25am
Post #39 of 49
(965 views)
Shortcut
|
...sounds to me like it would be perfectly within Zaentz's rights, per the 1969 agreement that you helpfully quoted, to "freely adapt, change, transpose, revise, rearrange, add to and subtract from the Work or any part thereof and the title, theme, plot, sequences, incidents and characterizations thereof, to make interpolations in and substitutions for any part or parts thereof, to make sequels to and new versions or adaptations of the Work or any part thereof, to use any part or parts of the Work or of the theme thereof or any incidents, characters, character names, scenes, sequences or characterizations therein contained in conjunction with any other work or works, and to separately or cumulatively do any or all of the foregoing, to such extent as the Purchaser, in its sole discretion may deem expedient...."
That is, the language from the original agreement appears to allow the Purchaser to make as many films as desired, with as much or as little connection to Tolkien's actual work as desired. So Zaentz, in sub-licensing to a producer only the rights to adapt LotR, The Hobbit, and one further "prequel" film based on those two books, was actually allowing that producer less leeway than he himself, in his role as successor to the original Purchaser, was entitled to. Zaentz's rumored later agreement is certainly not an expansion of what Tolkien had originally allowed the Purchaser to do.
None of this means that either the USA Today article, or even Jackson's understanding of the agreement as explained to him by Mark Ordesky, were correct that Zaentz had in that way restricted the rights that he leased out. Darkstone, with his vast memory, may have found only rumors and misunderstandings by others. But I see nothing that rules out the possibility.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us Dec. 8-15 for "The Steward and the King".
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Doriath
Dec 12 2008, 2:51pm
Post #40 of 49
(949 views)
Shortcut
|
That is, the language from the original agreement appears to allow the Purchaser to make as many films as desired, with as much or as little connection to Tolkien's actual work as desired. So Zaentz, in sub-licensing to a producer only the rights to adapt LotR, The Hobbit, and one further "prequel" film based on those two books, was actually allowing that producer less leeway than he himself, in his role as successor to the original Purchaser, was entitled to. Zaentz's rumored later agreement is certainly not an expansion of what Tolkien had originally allowed the Purchaser to do.
If in fact Zaentz had limited the licence in such a bizarre fashion, surely he would have limited it to a single Hobbit film, as well as a single "prequel". The very fact that the idea of the prequel/bridge film has seemed to have morphed into a two film Hobbit with some bridge elements, tells me that the license was not limited in this way. Surely if he somehow limited it to a single "prequel" (or even a single prequel or sequel, as the U.S. Today put it) he wouldn't have defeated the purposes of such limitation by allowing the licencee to make as many Hobbit films as he wanted, incorporating some of the very elements that could be used for the single "prequel" (or the single prequel or sequel described by U.S. Today)?
Is it possible that Zaentz granted a limited licence that gives the licensor less leeway than he himself holds. Yes, as you say, it is possible. But the evidence is strongly against it. Unless someone can show me that agreement, or some kind of solid evidence in support of its existence, than Occam's razor and my own experience as an attorney tells me that it is far more likely that talk of the rights to a single original prequel in addition to the rights to LOTR and The Hobbit is nothing more than a misinterpretation of the language of the original agreements.
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
|
|
|
Darkstone
Elvenhome
Jan 12 2009, 2:28pm
Post #42 of 49
(887 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'm afraid I'm not unconvinced.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Actually, not really. The 1969 agreements define the rights that Zaentz held, which limits what he was able to pass on to Weinstein/Miramax and subsequently to New Line. Even without having the other agreements in front of me, I know as an attorney what it is that Zaentz could and could not agree to licence. That's pretty basic. Of course, if you can get your hands on the 97 and 98 agreements I will look at them, but I am quite confident that Zaentz did not attempt to make up rights that he did not actually have and try to market them. He is too much of a pro, and more importantly, he has attorneys that know what they are doing.
I have to agree with NE Brigand that the text you quote means the exact opposite of what you say it does. That is, I read the language as saying that Zaentz could indeed grant license to make an original prequel. (BTW, I may not be a lawyer, but I have 29 years of experience explaining Federal, State, county, and local environmental orders, laws, and regulations to government, corporate, and district attorneys. I've even written quite a few on the local level myself.)
Well, I would say that I would trust PJ as a filmmaker, but that's not entirely true either (although it's more true than for some, like our N.E.Brigand). But in any case I don't trust him to understand the legal issues. It sounds like he was just parroting something that he heard, or twisting it around. Unless you can show me some kind of agreement that Zaentz entered into that specifies rights different than those defined by the 1969 agreements (which I don't believe is possible), I'm afraid I'm not going to believe that such rights actually exist. If there is one thing that I have learned as an attorney, it is that things that "have been common knowledge for a long time" often prove to be untrue.
Actually if Jackson is “parroting” anyone it is his attorneys. This is an extremely important document, the opening volley in his legal battle against New Line. Sure, one might assume that an executive producer of New Line didn’t know what he was talking about, and that Jackson didn’t check what he was told, and that Jackson’s attorneys let him make a potentially embarrassing false statement in a public release, and that New Line’s attorneys missed the glaring “gotcha!” misstatement entirely. Or one can assume all these professionals knew exactly what they were doing.
I’ll go with Occam’s Razor here.
******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Doriath
Jan 12 2009, 2:54pm
Post #43 of 49
(877 views)
Shortcut
|
|
We'll Have to Agree to Disagree
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Unless you can come up with copies of the agreement between Zaentz and Miramax, or other compelling evidence, I will remain unconvinced that there was a specific agreement to produce an "original prequel" contained therein (as opposed to a licencing of the rights that are defined in the 1969 agreements). Of course, if no one ever makes such a film, that would seem to contradict your initial contention (that if del Toro/Jackson do not do so, someone else definitely will).
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
|
|
|
Darkstone
Elvenhome
Jan 12 2009, 3:15pm
Post #44 of 49
(880 views)
Shortcut
|
If in fact Zaentz had limited the licence in such a bizarre fashion, surely he would have limited it to a single Hobbit film, as well as a single "prequel". The very fact that the idea of the prequel/bridge film has seemed to have morphed into a two film Hobbit with some bridge elements, tells me that the license was not limited in this way. Surely if he somehow limited it to a single "prequel" (or even a single prequel or sequel, as the U.S. Today put it) he wouldn't have defeated the purposes of such limitation by allowing the licencee to make as many Hobbit films as he wanted, incorporating some of the very elements that could be used for the single "prequel" (or the single prequel or sequel described by U.S. Today)?
Using the same logic, what about the license to LOTR? Did Zaentz specify the number of films that could be made from that book? If so, which company was acting in contravention of the license: Miramax in planning to make two films, Disney in planning to make one film, or New Line in eventually making three films? And could New Line, as some have dreamed, actually have made six films (one for each internal book) out of LOTR if they had been a bit more prescient about the box office?
In regards to licensing The Hobbit, did Zaentz also specify the number of parts that *that* book could be made into? Did he do so with various other adaptations? The Mind’s Eye radio adaptation had 6 parts. Jackanory’s television adaptation had 10 episodes. Eclipse Comics adaptation had three issues. Why would Zaentz grant these others license to tell The Hobbit in as many installments as artistically necessary but deny Weinstein the same? It doesn’t make any sense. I’ll go with Occam’s Razor and assume Zaentz granted Weinstein the same flexibility as he did all the others, especially as he had granted Weinstein the license as a personal favor for saving him from financial ruin.
Is it possible that Zaentz granted a limited licence that gives the licensor less leeway than he himself holds. Yes, as you say, it is possible.
As I said in my original post:
"Actually I think the wording of the 1997 agreement between Miramax (Weinstein) and Tolkien Enterprises (Zaentz) and the 1998 agreement between Miramax (Weinstein) and New Line would be more pertinent."
From what you’ve said I believe you’ve come around to my way of thinking.
But the evidence is strongly against it.
The only real evidence we have are the public statements of the participants. Unless we have any evidence that they don't know what they're talking about I see no reason at all to dispute them.
Unless someone can show me that agreement, or some kind of solid evidence in support of its existence, than Occam's razor and my own experience as an attorney tells me that it is far more likely that talk of the rights to a single original prequel in addition to the rights to LOTR and The Hobbit is nothing more than a misinterpretation of the language of the original agreements.
Again, I’ll go with Occam’s Razor and assume that all the participants and their attorneys know better what’s going on than we do.
******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”
|
|
|
Darkstone
Elvenhome
Jan 12 2009, 3:27pm
Post #45 of 49
(877 views)
Shortcut
|
And unless you can produce compelling evidence that Jackson was not telling the truth in his public statement I'll believe that an original prequel (or prequels) is an inevitability.
******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Doriath
Jan 12 2009, 3:33pm
Post #46 of 49
(875 views)
Shortcut
|
In regards to licensing The Hobbit, did Zaentz also specify the number of parts that *that* book could be made into? Did he do so with various other adaptations? The Mind’s Eye radio adaptation had 6 parts. Jackanory’s television adaptation had 10 episodes. Eclipse Comics adaptation had three issues. Why would Zaentz grant these others license to tell The Hobbit in as many installments as artistically necessary but deny Weinstein the same? It doesn’t make any sense. I’ll go with Occam’s Razor and assume Zaentz granted Weinstein the same flexibility as he did all the others, especially as he had granted Weinstein the license as a personal favor for saving him from financial ruin. That's exactly what I have been saying!  Zaentz granted Weinstein rights to make however many films he wanted to, within the broad constraints of the rights granted in the 1969 agreements, and limited in time by the licence agreement. He did not specifically limit it to: x number of LOTR films, y number of Hobbit films, and one original prequel, as you originally suggested.
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Doriath
Jan 12 2009, 3:40pm
Post #47 of 49
(870 views)
Shortcut
|
It's always a pleasure to have a discussion with someone, even with strong disagreement, that is polite and respectful!
You are a gentleman (and a scholar).
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
|
|
|
Darkstone
Elvenhome
Jan 12 2009, 4:26pm
Post #48 of 49
(875 views)
Shortcut
|
He did not specifically limit it to: x number of LOTR films, y number of Hobbit films, and one original prequel,...
So you agree with my original post?
As I understand it, Saul Zaentz sold Harvey Weinstein the rights to make:
1. The Lord of the Rings
2. The Hobbit
3. "An original prequel" (I understand that is the wording, not "bridge film".)
That's three entirely different movies or series of movies.
Merely because Jackson made three LOTR films doesn't mean he can't make a film or films out of The Hobbit. The Hobbit is an entirely different property.
And merely because Jackson and DelToro make two films out of The Hobbit doesn't mean "an original prequel" couldn't still be made. "An original prequel" is an entirely different property. Making The Hobbit into one, two, three, or however many different films won't change that.
And I wonder if "an original prequel" couldn't be milked into an ungodly number of direct to video films?
..as you originally suggested.
I think you can see from the above that you misunderstood me.
******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”
|
|
|
Darkstone
Elvenhome
Jan 12 2009, 4:40pm
Post #49 of 49
(902 views)
Shortcut
|
This is just a net forum after all, and hardly worth being abusive to another human being over. It would be so against everything Tolkien and his work stood for.
Thank you for the discussion.
******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”
|
|
|
|
|
