"The Hobbit" Dilemma

[Aravar]

I think one way or the other the existence of the lawsuit will mean that what can or cannot be used will be strictly delineated.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

It is already strictly delineated. Anything in or based on LOTR or The Hobbit is fair game. Anything in or based on any other works of Tolkien is strictly prohibited. I don't see any chance of that changing.

[Alatar]

What about the stuff I mentioned Voronwë? Was that just a case of leniency?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Sorry, Al, I missed your previous post (and Padme's, too). I think those things were simply too insignificant to bother about. Honestly, the Ring of Barahir is probably the only solid, concrete example that I have ever seen of something that was clearly taken from a Tolkien source other than LOTR or The Hobbit.

[solicitr]

In fact, the movie Death of Isildur (short and long versions) was clearly NOT based on the UT narrative, where he was shot while standing up in the shallows, but the on the LR version where he was shot swimming (and other details as well).

[sauronsfinger]

On another forum, Solicitr and I have had this conversation before in great and exhaustive detail.... but I have always had questions as to the ethics of selling somebody the film rights to something and then recreating or causing to be published much the same thing with more detailed information down the road.

It causes innumberable headaches for the original holder of the rights as to how to properly exercise them to the fullest extent they can without violating other rights that they do not hold.

The information in the Appendices of LOTR and the subsequent publication of far more detailed information puts the film rights holders to LOTR in an almost impossible position should they decide to exercise their rights to put that material on screen.

[Primula Baggins]

We have indeed had this discussion before, sf.

Try this. If I buy film rights to a saintly person's autobiography, and before I can make the film, the person is convicted of some nauseating sex crime, I have no right to sue the person who sold me the rights. I bought what I bought, and I still own it. That subsequent events or further information makes the rights difficult or impossible to exercise is my problem, not the autobiographer's.

PJ et al. don't even have the excuse of not knowing, going in, that this difficulty might come up. It was right there in front of them, and all the later books had been published long before.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yes, you have gone on at length on this subject here before, sf. Your position is not legally (or, in my opinion, morally) tenable.

[sauronsfinger]

from Prim

PJ et al. don't even have the excuse of not knowing, going in, that this difficulty might come up. It was right there in front of them, and all the later books had been published long before.

Except that is not factually correct. The film rights were sold in the late 1960's to United Artists by JRRT himself while he was still alive. He died in 1973. It was not until eight years after the film rights were sold that SILMARILLION was cause to be published by his son Christopher. UNFINISHED TALES was published even later in 1980.

United Artists, in 1969, did not know of the existence of any SILMARILLION books of First Age material in 1969 because it did not come into public existence until eight years later.

So then the film rights holders hold rights to material which is now highly problematic if parts of it can ever be used to the fullest extent because the son of the man they made a deal with has rendered them virtually unusable.

I am no attorney. I will not take issue with the legal opinion of those that are. But, I can make a judgment as a person, and the ethics of the whole situation do not sit well with me.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

from Prim

PJ et al. don't even have the excuse of not knowing, going in, that this difficulty might come up. It was right there in front of them, and all the later books had been published long before.

Except that is not factually correct.

It's absolutely factually correct. Prim didn't say that UA et al. didn't have the excuse of not knowing about the other material, she said that that PJ et al didn't have that excuse. They obviously knew all about The Silmarillion, UT, etc. (particularly Philippa Boyens).

And even at the time that UA bought the film rights to LOTR and TH, the existence of The Silmarillion (and Tolkien's intention to publish it) was well known.

In any event, as I said before this topic has been covered extensively before and you have made your views explicitly clear, so it is not necessary to do so again.

[sauronsfinger]

The rights holders are now Saul Zaentz who has licensed them to others for a limited time. Zaentz owns the film rights. This and never was a matter of what Peter Jackson or any of his employess knew or did not know. It is a matter of what the film rights holder owns and is entitled to exercise as part of their property.

[Primula Baggins]

Which is, exactly what the contract spells out and no more.

Anyway, we've been over this.