Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
With the Hobbit...
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

pettytyrant101
Lorien


Jul 30 2012, 4:28am

Post #26 of 43 (384 views)
Shortcut
What about responsibility? [In reply to] Can't Post

I do not believe a director taking on an adaptation should have autonomy to do whatever he pleases. There is a responsibility one takes on to the original work.

If Pj wanted to have the ability to do whatever he pleases he could have made his own fantasy story, not basterised someone elses out of all recognition.
If I was being really cynical, and I am, I would say the reason he did not do so is depsite all the hype Tolkiens name still guarantees more box office money than Peter Jacksons.


Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Jul 30 2012, 4:41am

Post #27 of 43 (403 views)
Shortcut
There's a book? [In reply to] Can't Post

Who'd a thunk it?

Tongue

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

The Hall of Fire


Phibbus
Rohan


Jul 30 2012, 4:44am

Post #28 of 43 (375 views)
Shortcut
I thought... [In reply to] Can't Post

there were three???

Man is but an ass if he go about to expound this dream.


SirDennisC
Half-elven


Jul 30 2012, 5:00am

Post #29 of 43 (366 views)
Shortcut
It would be interesting to see what limits [In reply to] Can't Post

if any are placed on the use of the material they have access to via the film rights. I'm guessing it is pretty wide open. However, it would be in PJ's interest to honour the source material by coming as close to what is written as possible.

I agree that Tolkien's name is a draw all on its own. But since The Hobbit isn't being released in a vacuum, it would be difficult to say what will be the bigger draw for the majority of people, PJ's LOTR or Tolkien. Of course there are people who have not seen or heard of LOTR nor read The Hobbit or any of Tolkien's other works. But there are also many who only read Tolkien because they saw LOTR.

If it is an important question, say for more than just awarding bragging rights, some sophisticated polling would need to be done to answer definitively. Just for example, I wish they would have asked people what got them to come back for more after FOTR... I've always said (though have no way of proving it) that Bloom in POC put more butts in seats for TTT than FOTR did on its own. That was a case of good timing. But then after initial impressions of Gollum came out, that put butts in seats as well. How many people were there just because they were Tolkien fans already? Who knows.


SirDennisC
Half-elven


Jul 30 2012, 5:01am

Post #30 of 43 (352 views)
Shortcut
*snert* // [In reply to] Can't Post

 


Phibbus
Rohan


Jul 30 2012, 5:15am

Post #31 of 43 (357 views)
Shortcut
I was just about to post this... [In reply to] Can't Post

Here is an excerpt from the original agreement signed with United Artists (thanks to Voronwë_the_Faithful for leading me to it) dealing most specifically with Hobbit film rights. (Note that, somewhat inexplicably, "Work" here refers to The Hobbit and The Two Towers, collectively:


Quote
[…]

2. The Owner hereby grants and sells to the Purchaser for the entire world all or the motion picture rights in and to the Work, for the period of copyright and all extensions and renewals of copyright; provided, however, that to the extent that the Seller has. any of the rights granted hereunder which may or will continue after the period or copyright, and extensions and renewals of copyright, by operations or law or otherwise, Seller hereby grants and sells such rights to Purchaser forever. The term "motion picture rights" as used herein means the following:

a) The sole and exclusive right to make one or more sound, silent, talking-and/or musical motion picture photoplays based upon the Work or any part thereof of any type now or hereafter known, including but not limited to animated cartoon versions;

b) 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, the 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 or the Work or any part thereof, to use any part or parts or the Work or or 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 or the foregoing, to such extent as the Purchaser, in its sole discretion, may deem expedient in the 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 tor profit (or non-profit), arrange, adapt, and exploit same throughout the world in Purchaser's name or otherwise, and to use, superimpose and/or photograph lines, excerpts from or translation or such Work for the title, subtitles, text and dialogue of said motion picture photoplays (the foregoing shall not prevent Seller from exercising the rights granted in this subparagraph (b) in connection with the rights reserved by Seller).

[…]


Man is but an ass if he go about to expound this dream.


pettytyrant101
Lorien


Jul 30 2012, 5:27am

Post #32 of 43 (352 views)
Shortcut
I suspect [In reply to] Can't Post

that more went to see FotR on Tolkiens name than the relatively unknow at the time PJ. And equally I suspect less will go on the strength of Tolkiens name to TH and more on PJ's as he has been hyped and fetted by the industry ever since LotR's helped revitalise a flagging industry.

The rights to the film are as would be expected- but having the legal right to completely alter the material and it being just plain right to do so are two differnt things.
In my view there is little point in adapting a work only to completely alter it.

If one puts aside whether or not the films were successful or enjoyable or any other criteria but to compare how much of the books made it onto the screen the answer is suprisingly little.
For example the opening of the film to Bree only keeps one or two parts- mainly elements of Shadow of the Past and Bilbos Birthday party. The rest, Merry and Pippin, Crickhollow, Maggot, Old Forest, Tom ect are completely purged.
In my view Tolkien was correct in his view that it is impossible to do the books any sort of real justice in a film, there simply is not the time.

However he never thought of TV- a format it is far more suited to being adapted to and on which nowadays it could be satisfactorily visualised.


Phibbus
Rohan


Jul 30 2012, 5:38am

Post #33 of 43 (341 views)
Shortcut
Actually... [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
However he never thought of TV- a format it is far more suited to being adapted to and on which nowadays it could be satisfactorily visualised.


The agreement does provide for television rights, as well, although there are certain strictures placed which may not be met... I'll have to check.

Man is but an ass if he go about to expound this dream.


SirDennisC
Half-elven


Jul 30 2012, 5:50am

Post #34 of 43 (371 views)
Shortcut
I agree with everything you have said. [In reply to] Can't Post

Still it pays to keep in mind, especially in light of the text* of the film rights agreement that Phibbus posted (thanks for that btw!) that essentially we are (very likely) talking about two entirely unique things when we say "The Hobbit." One is Tolkien's book, the other is PJ's adaptation to film.

*This part really leapt out at me: "... to freely adapt, change, transpose, revise, rearrange, add to and subtract from the Work or any part thereof and the title..."

Sounds like they can do whatever they want. The extent to which the movie matches up with the book is a measure of how well PJ (not necessarily all directors for all time) thought what was written would translate to film -- which is not necessarily the same thing as how much he admired/knew/understood the source material.


(This post was edited by SirDennisC on Jul 30 2012, 5:50am)


Phibbus
Rohan


Jul 30 2012, 6:19am

Post #35 of 43 (328 views)
Shortcut
What jumps out at me... [In reply to] Can't Post

Is the bit about "to make sequels to and new versions or adaptations or the Work or any part thereof, to use any part or parts or the Work or or the theme thereof or any incidents, characters, character names, scenes, sequences or characterizations therein contained in conjunction with any other work or works."

I keep wondering whether that stipulation might not be the actual and ultimate inspiration for a "third film," and also whether the bits in Unfinished Tales and The Silmarillion relating specifically to events in TH and LotR are as legally off-limits as we like to think.

Man is but an ass if he go about to expound this dream.


Xanaseb
Tol Eressea


Jul 30 2012, 6:24am

Post #36 of 43 (321 views)
Shortcut
don't worry Sinister, it might be too early to 100% say that... and even if it were the case... then.. 'oh well' is what I'd say. // [In reply to] Can't Post

 

Join us over at Barliman's chat all day, any day!
________________________________________________

-I am a victim of Bifurcation- (credit to Elpidha)
________________________________________________

Dwarves: 'Erebor!', 'Erebor!!', '..Erebor!'
Bilbo: .. It's only a CGI model
Dwarves: 'Shhhhh!'


SirDennisC
Half-elven


Jul 30 2012, 6:33am

Post #37 of 43 (343 views)
Shortcut
Having thought about your question a bit more [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
Has anyone seen PJ or anyone in charge wise (other than Andy Serkis, whom I think a saw with one) with a copy of the Hobbit in their hands? or have they thrown the book out the window this time around?


It did seem rather organic the way people were seen carrying around copies of The Lord of the Rings on set. Given that our attention was called to it though, I can't help but think it might have been part of selling the idea that the movies honoured the books more than may have been apparent from watching the movies alone. We spoke about this aspect of the DVD extras a couple weeks ago... the word propaganda was tossed about briefly... always a conversation killer that.

Anyway, if that is the case, I mean if it was just part of the marketing of an idea, perhaps it doesn't matter this time around? Perhaps they (being them) decided they didn't need to play up their observance of the books since they are anticipating that the bigger challenge is how well The Hobbit movies line up with LOTR? Or perhaps they think that it is the strength of LOTR that is going to motivate people to see The Hobbit movies?

On the other hand, we have seen about 90 minutes of vlogs. The extras ran much longer than that for each film... perhaps they haven't managed to assemble and display all the footage showing people holding books?

It's hard to say whether or not they threw the book out the window this time around, until we see the films. Even if they show evidence that people consulted the books frequently, the proof will be in the movies themselves.


(This post was edited by SirDennisC on Jul 30 2012, 6:39am)


SirDennisC
Half-elven


Jul 30 2012, 6:50am

Post #38 of 43 (321 views)
Shortcut
Yes, I noticed that as well [In reply to] Can't Post

it certainly makes the third and/or a fourth through sixth movie a possibility. Theoretically they could use the character names for countless fan-fic-tacular titles in perpetuity. I'm guessing a reboot isn't out of the question either... oh I just choked a little...

Here we've been arguing for purity when perhaps all along we should have been praising them for staying with the story at all? Seriously though, Tolkien's stories and characters inside of those stories are what touched people... it would be very uninspired of anyone to stray too far from such excellent source material.


(This post was edited by SirDennisC on Jul 30 2012, 6:51am)


Crunchable Birdses
Rohan


Jul 30 2012, 8:29am

Post #39 of 43 (297 views)
Shortcut
This has to be a troll thread right? [In reply to] Can't Post

Because as a troll it's absolutely pitch perfect. I'm quite jealous I didn't think of it first actually.

* crunch *


Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens

Jul 30 2012, 8:46am

Post #40 of 43 (305 views)
Shortcut
No no not a troll thread. [In reply to] Can't Post

Just a post by an ordinary poster who you might find sitting next to you on the bus or on a jury.

LR


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Jul 30 2012, 3:45pm

Post #41 of 43 (245 views)
Shortcut
yes [In reply to] Can't Post

I remember vblog 5 on location we see pj andy martin and ian with the book...on the 8th vblog we see martin with a book called TH with a piece of paper with annotations on it...
I'll bet Richard Armitage keeps one copy with him at all times...alongside shakespeare and greek tragediesWink


shadowdog
Rohan

Jul 30 2012, 3:52pm

Post #42 of 43 (235 views)
Shortcut
I suspect [In reply to] Can't Post

I am not the only one who went to see all three of the LoTR movies because of a love of Tolkien's stories. I expect to go to the two Hobbit films to see Tolkien's story come to life. I love Tolkiens version of Middle Earth and the goings on there. When the first movie came out, I had never heard of Peter Jackson. I went in with fear in my heart as to what he would do with the story. I fell as much in love with his portrayal of Middle Earth and the goings on there as in Tolkien's version. They are both valid. Books such as the trilogy can't be transferred to the screen exactly as written. I didn't agree with all the changes made by Jackson; but those were minor in the scope of the film trilogy. I get upset by those in here who seem to think if you love Tolkien, you must hate Jackson and if you love Jackson who are no true Tolkienite. There are many of us in this universe who think both are worthy of enjoyment and love. They can both exist in my universe and I can love and enjoy both for what each is. There is no either/or in my universe.

Can't wait to see The Hobbit on the big screen and expect to enjoy it as much as I enjoy the books.


Hanzkaz
Rohan

Jul 30 2012, 4:18pm

Post #43 of 43 (255 views)
Shortcut
Peter Jackson's responsibility? [In reply to] Can't Post

I think, technically, his responsibility is to make a film that sells cinema tickets.

I'm just glad his approach to Lord of the Rings was different to how Michael Bay dealt with Transformers.

There are a few things I wish he'd included or done differently (if they ever redo ROTK EE, that WItch-King vs Gandalf scene has to be changed - I still can't believe they did that) but I think he pulled off a miracle, especially considering how close we came to getting a one-movie Lord of the Rings.

As for PJ not walking around with a copy of the Hobbit, I suspect things were a bit less organised back when they were making the LOTR movies, so having a volume of Tolkien's epic around was handy..


(This post was edited by Hanzkaz on Jul 30 2012, 4:18pm)

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.