Film Rights and "The Quest of Erebor"

DanielLB

DanielLB

Immortal
Sorry for dragging up a topic that has been discussed many, many times before, but I have a couple of questions regarding film rights, and the use of "The Quest of Erebor" from the Unfinished Tales.

Now, I re-read this part of the UT yesterday, simply because I hadn't read it in a while. I know the production team do not have rights to use any material from the Silmarillion or the UT, but how will that actually work out?

As far as I am aware, Tolkien wrote "The Quest of Erebor" to be included in the LOTR appendices, but didn't make it into the final edition. While there are also multiple manuscripts of this, it is clear that Tolkien intended it to be part of The Hobbit & LOTR stories.

Gandalf's telling of the Quest is quite interesting - the backstory to how he "bumped" into Thorin near/at Bree, the decisions to choose a Hobbit for the quest (based on his "premonitions"), convincing the Dwarves to take a Hobbit on their journey, Bilbo being a burglar, Gandalf's reasons for getting rid of Smaug etc etc.

In my opinion, this is all very interesting information that connects all the different strands and timelines together. So my question is, while PJ and co are not allowed to use anything from the UT, can they use a variation of "The Quest of Erebor" - or is it totally 100% out-of-bounds? Does it mean that they cannot empahsise why Gandalf wants Smaug defeated, or film a scene with Thorin and Gandalf at Bree, or Gandalf lieing to the Dwarves about Bilbo being a burglar? Or does it mean that they can use these themes, as long as they do not represent (or have lifted (i.e. actual quotes)) straight from the book?

I realise that even if they were allowed to use the "The Quest of Erebor" it probably wouldn't make it into the film (as it doesn't really add anything - apart from a backstory). I am just interested in whether they can make up a variation of "The Quest of Erebor" drawing upon what Tolkien wrote, for the film.
 
...they can use exactly those concepts that actually made it into the published TH/LotR/Appendices. Period. Unless a plot element is very strongly suggested in one of these Authorized Texts, they're at serious risk of a lawsuit for using it. At least, that's my interpretation of the discussions we've had.

Jackson bent the rules a little in LotR, by (for example) having Aragorn wearing the Ring of Barahir (perfectly matching its description in the Sil), but a closeup of it only appeared in an EE.

If Voronwë_the_Faithful is around, maybe he can shed more light.

In principle, I completely agree that I'd rather have these plot elements based on 'canon' (to the extent that UT is canon), but the Estate has proven to be tigers when it comes to enforcing their rights.
 
Last edited:
the meeting between Gandalf and Thorin at Bree, as well as Gandalf's motivations for removing Smaug, since both of these are in Appendix A of Lotr, but I highly doubt they could use anything else from the passage.
 
- I shouldn't have thought they'd get away with paraphrasing, or anything like that. As for the question of what Tolkien intended to put into LotR - he had the chance to do so in the Second ed. ( IIRC - When was the Quest of Erebor written, BTW?)

Anyway; my point is that Tolkien had the right (and prob. the opportunity) to add any of his older writings to his story, but he chose not to. .I for one am happy to accept things as he left them.
 
I am not saying that Tolkien should have included it - I think it is just a nice background to the Hobbit and the reasons for their meeting etc. I could be wrong but I always thought that Tolkien left it out for pacing reasons. Perhaps my phrase of "intending" was wrong in that sentence.
 
very difficult I think. On the one hand the meeting and whatnot is part of LOTR Appendixes so they are allowed to use it. But, it only needs a couple of lines of dialogue to be too close to UT and the law suits will start flying.
 
I don't have much to add to what you said, other than to mention yet again the curious report in October 2010 in Entertainment Weekly that stated:

Still, sources are confident that filming could get underway by January as intended. Warner and its New Line division have been busying themselves recently with, among everything else, clearing up rights issues that remained with the J.R.R. Tolkien estate.
Click to expand...

http://insidemovies.ew.com/...boycott-new-zealand/

That has led me to speculate about whether those rights issues involved clarification of just what material they could use that is covered in both books that they have rights too, and books they don't. If it were presented to Christopher as a choice between making stuff up that contradicted what was said in UT versus using material in UT, I could see him agreeing to the latter (particularly if it also involved a significant additional payment). He is not as unreasonable as some have painted him to be (no wild boars defend him, for instance).
 
Last edited:
Hi TORN-community!

(This is my first post here, but I am an old TORN Forum-reader.[;)] I'm from Hungary, so sorry for the bad english!)

I know, that PJ can only use The Hobbit and The LOTR + Appendices for the filming, but there is A Hobbit-version, which includes the "Quest for Erebor" text: The Annotated Hobbit!

If PJ can use all the materials from The Hobbit, maybe he can use The Annotatted Hobbit too, and with it the "Quest for Erebor" from it's appendix.

What do You think about that?
 
wild boars [laugh]

Yes, that quote is noteworthy for a few reasons not least of which is its timing.
 
Last edited:
I certainly agree that money is not the prime factor dictating decisions that Christopher Tolkien specifically and the Tolkien Estate generally would make about issues like this, but if there were in fact negotiations going on about rights issues, as that EW article pretty categorically states, money would certainly be involved in the negotiations. Christopher and the Estate would have to be fools to agree to grant additional rights to any material and not be paid for it. They are not fools. That is not to say that he or they would make the decision to sell said rights because they wanted to make money, but if the decision were make to do so, of course they would be paid for it. Cathleen Blackburn would not allow it to be any other way.
 
If negotiations are or were going on, then money would indeed be a factor. But I was responding specificall to this -

"If it were presented to Christopher as a choice between making stuff up that contradicted what was said in UT versus using material in UT, I could see him agreeing to the latter (particularly if it also involved a significant additional payment). He is not as unreasonable as some have painted him to be."

Voronwe is saying that he feels that Christopher could be persuaded to move from his long - held position if a significant amount of money were offered. I don't know Christopher, nor what he thinks about this sort of thing. but from what I've heard and read, I don't think an increased offer would tilt the negotiations.

Now I'm going to talk generally; not spec. in reposnse to VTF's post. There is an attitude that anything is for sale, if the price is right. I don't subscribe to this notion. I was talking about this subject - the sale of Tolkien's movie rights - to a colleague at work some time ago, in the staff canteen. A third party - one I know only vaguely - butted in with what he must have thought is a pearl of wisdom - 'Everything has its price' he uttered, with a worldly-wise smile. I carried on my conversation, and this chap butted in again - 'Everything has its price'. And the smile. I said to him. 'No. If someone wanted to buy my books, I'd talk to him. If someone wanted to buy my grandson, I'd kill 'im.'

A bit extreme, but he annoyed me. It's an attitude I cannot get on with Some thingas are just not for sale. As I said in another thread elsewhere here on Torn - money is not everything.

Again let me stress - I'm not saying VTF thinks so.
 
I realize that what I wrote was not very clear, so let me try again. I am not saying that Christopher could be convinced to abandoned his long-held position if money is offered (though I can certainly understand how you could think that is what I am saying). What I am saying is that there is a clear grey area as to exactly what the filmmakers can and cannot do based on the existence of material that is presented in very cursory form in one of the books that the filmmakers do have the right to use, but in much more detailed form in books that they do not have the right to use (to answer a question that someone else asked below, Doug Anderson's Annotated Hobbit would not be covered by the rights licenced to the filmmakers). That grey area raises the possibility that the filmmakers would want to reach an agreement with the Estate in order to avoid any future litigation between them. This possibility is highlighted by the EW report that I mentioned, because I can think of no other rights issue that the filmmakers would need to address with the Estate. Given the fact that a reputable report exists that such discussion did occur, I think it is reasonable to assume that some kind of agreement was reached. Assuming that agreement involved some kind of limited authorization of material from UT in expanding on the material from LOTR Appendix A, some kind of payment would certainly be allowed. That payment would not have been the motivating factor to abandon the position that Christopher has long held against selling the rights to any of his father's other works, but would simply help finalize an agreement to resolve this outstanding question.

And that is probably not really much clearer, but it is the best I can do. The reality is that we may never know the truth of the matter, though obviously we will be able to speculate further once we see the films and know what they have done. If that EW report hadn't mentioned resolving a rights issue with the Estate, I never would have gone there in the first place. Of course, that report might have been a load of hooey in the first place. It wouldn't be the first time!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top