Boyens: Hobbit films not "episodic"

[Teremia]

I'm quite a huge Oz fan and was thinking of Oz just as I saw sauronsfinger's post!

But Oz is a different case: the movie is VERY different from the books, and I love both. I also love the book "Wicked" (which is very VERY different from the original Oz, and yet clearly written by someone who knew his Oz lore inside and out) and even sort of like the musical "Wicked," which is much watered down from the book "Wicked" and which takes the movie Oz, not the book Oz, as its reference.

I also like the Oz books not just by L. Frank Baum, but also by Ruth Plumly Thompson, and even some of the later writers, of whom there is an abundance. Golly -- even I wrote an Oz book, during a dull summer spent studying Latin in graduate school.

The difference between Oz and Middle Earth is that Oz became, almost from the get-go, a place where all sorts of contradictory versions of itself could cohabit, whereas Middle Earth has been much more consistently the property of JRRT (even if his own versions of things are not always internally consistent or changed over time).

There's an odd sort of legitimacy in Oz-worlds about what in other places is called fanfiction, because the core of the canon is already made up of a multiplicity of versions/fictions, created by many different people, and containing all sorts of inconsistencies (even down to the basics, like "Is Munchkinland on the East or the West side of the map?").

I think Oz fans describe the situation as Oz being a real place, the histories of which have varied according to the convictions of its historians.

[solicitr]

I think you're quite right, Teremia- Oz is a very different affair, especially since even Baum himself wasn't especially concerned with consistency, and was perfectly happy to chop, channel and recombine things to make stage-plays, political satires, and even a silent movie.

Oz is undeniably *fun*- I devoured all Fourteen as a kid, most in the glorious original editions- but it really is a collection of inventive 'adventures,' loosely strung together in a vaguely-defined geography and 'political' situation. More like, I suppose, a TV series- in fact the Star Trek universe comes to mind.

[sauronsfinger]

Regardless of nitpicking at minor differences, there is the overall arching commonality of both Baum and Tolkien being authors of books centered in imaginary worlds that were turned into successful and beloved films. Lets not focus so much on the differences of individual trees so that we lose sight of the actual forest.

[solicitr]

Hey, that's right! After all, once we step away from the trees it's plain that Olivier's Hamlet and The Lion King are exactly the same movie- but we know which one made more money!

[Padme]

I would say Baum and Tolkien were different trees alltogether. Tolkien never wanted any of his books made into movies and only gave up the rights to LoTR/Hobbit to pay a bill. That did not change his stance on the books staying books, I don't believe.

However, there is room to appreicate both the books and the films on their own merrits. And there is no way in any universe, PJ or GDT could even possibly put all the material from the books into the movies. We'd all be in the theater still if the books were translated word for word into the movies.



Soli,
I learned something new to day from your above post....it was a doh moment. Thank you good sir.

[sauronsfinger]

I am sorry Solicitr but I do not know what that is suppose to mean other than it is suppose to be some sort of rebuke for my post.

Every book is different. Every author is different. Every film is different. Every imaginary world is different. Its like my kids used to say when they were teenagers....'duh'.

There is a commonality that also exists which is why I brought up the comparison of the book followers of Baum and the book followers of Tolkien and their possible reaction to the films made of both worlds.

from Padme

Tolkien never wanted any of his books made into movies and only gave up the rights to LoTR/Hobbit to pay a bill.

We are all just trying to pay the bills. Tolkien entered into a binding and legal contract as a grown man of his own free will. If he never wanted a film to be made of his world he had the total ability to make sure that never happened.

[vison]

Disney, or the people who made The Wizard of Oz, have/had as much right to make the changes they made as PJ had to make his. I don't care what Disney did to Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty or even The Hunchback of Notre Dame.

I do care about what PJ did to LOTR, but that's my problem. I am as free not to watch the movies as he was to make them. I was partly delighted with them, the first time I saw them, but that delight has not lasted. My delight in reading the book has lasted for 43 years and looks like lasting to the end of my days.

And, The Lion King was a great movie. I believe it was a much better movie than PJ's adaptation of LOTR. That's my opinion, that is not Received Gospel.

[Padme]

from Padme

Tolkien never wanted any of his books made into movies and only gave up the rights to LoTR/Hobbit to pay a bill.

We are all just trying to pay the bills. Tolkien entered into a binding and legal contract as a grown man of his own free will. If he never wanted a film to be made of his world he had the total ability to make sure that never happened.

Thus the Silmarillion (his most prized ME work) won't be made into a movie(s). He sold the rights to pay a bill. People tend to pawn their least valuable gold to feed the family, as it were, and hang onto the good stuff as long as possible.

[sauronsfinger]

I understand your point Padme and I certainly agree that JRRT loved his creation of THE SILMARILLION. However, at the time of the sale of both HOBBIT and LOTR to film, those were indeed his most valuable properties.

[yovargas]

In the world of adaptation or any other such similar artistic endeavor (music covers come to mind), I could hardly care less what the author wanted or intended or whatnot.

[Elentári]

Good point, Yov.

JRRT sold the rights to turning the books into films. Period. No restrictions. He could have written in all sorts of limitations to keep artistic control over them, like J K Rowling, but he relied on the fact that he thought they were unfilmable...which they were nearly 40 years ago.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I understand your point Padme and I certainly agree that JRRT loved his creation of THE SILMARILLION. However, at the time of the sale of both HOBBIT and LOTR to film, those were indeed his most valuable properties.

Yeah. It would have been a bit unconventional for him to have sold the rights to work that he never finished or published himself.

[solicitr]

Nobody doubts that UA/Zaentz/Miramax/New Line/PJ had the legal right to do what they wanted with the license.

That doesn't mean that everything that *can* be done *ought* to be done. Filmmakers have of course always been free to re-adapt public domain tales like King Arthur or Robin Hood or the Three Musketeers- and, often as not, made dog's breakfasts* of them.

Or, worse yet, the upcoming travesty of Sherlock Holmes.


*Included that one just for you, vison.

[sauronsfinger]

from V

It would have been a bit unconventional for him to have sold the rights to work that he never finished or published himself.

Unconventional - maybe. But not at all impossible or unprecedented. Anyone can sell anything they own to anyone else who wants to purchase it. When Tolkien had interest from Hollywood, he could just as easily attempted to steer them to his stacks of papers later assembled into the formal SILMARILLION. But he did not because they had far less, if any, real market value compared to the HOBBIT and LOTR.

Authors sell books they have not finished to film producers before they are completed or published. The latter Potter books come to mind as the obvious example. I suspect if Stephen King said to most major film studios "I will sell you the rights to make movies of my next five unwritten novels for $1 million each, they would seriously consider it or at least begin negotiating about the price. The same thing would probably apply to Dan Brown.

JRRT sold the most valuable property he had at the time and that was THE HOBBIT and LOTR. He owned other things but they had little value at that time.

[vison]

Sherlock Holmes? Well, I don't much care about Sherlock Holmes. I love the Jeremy Brett series, but not so much as to give me the whimwhams if someone does it differently.

I confess: I have only read maybe 2 or maybe 3 Holmes stories. I do recall The Speckled Band and The Hound of the Baskervilles. Maybe a couple of others. *yawn*

Never saw - truly, without being snarky - never saw much in Sherlock Holmes. Never understood the passion for Sherlock Holmes. Probably never will.

But that's *OK*. Your mileage may vary!

[Pearly Di]

I agree with Vor: I found PJ's '20 questions' responses neither perceptive nor subtle, notwithstanding the AICN fanboy drooling. Honestly, folks: reread them and tell me that Michael Bay wouldn't have given pretty much the same answers!

I didn't think so in 1999 and I don't think so now.

And, of course, there is always a chance that the Jackson team have learnt from their previous efforts and the criticism levelled at them...

Indeed.

Besides, like sf says, we got a Trilogy that was vastly better than the previous attempts or projected screenplays, so I am sure that, especially with the addition of GDT to the same team, we will get a HOBBIT vastly better than anything Hollywood might otherwise have produced.

I've been feeling like Ms Grump about The Hobbit just because I like to be a contrary Mary on the boards sometimes. I have been, in the main, a big supporter of PJ's LotR, warts and all, so I felt like being a disgruntled puristy type for a change.

Your post, Elen, just cheered me up.

I will probably still moan about The Hobbit, or affect indifference until I go to see it , but one thing I am certain of: whatever GDT/PJ come up with will certainly be miles better than your average Hollywood blockbuster.

I don't have the emotional attachment to TH that I do to LotR, although I am fond of TH: that partly explains my comparative indifference this time round.

[Elentári]

Di

I guess I'm just a glass half-full type of person

[Padme]

So if Tolkien sold his most valuable possession, since the Sil was not completed, because he didn't care about what they did to the stories and only wanted tomake money....why haven't the rights to the Silmarillion been sold to Hollyweird yet? If JRR wanted Christopher to sell the rights to make money and movies...pretty sure Christopher would not be so damn tight fisted with it


Elan,
The glass is the wrong size. It's never half full or half empty, its the wrong size.




All that said I beileve TH will be much easier to adapt to film than LoTR, being it's not nearly as complicated as LoTR. I just wonder how much of the story will be left out.

[sauronsfinger]

The Estate and Christopher have not had to sell any film rights to the SILMARILLION because of strong cash flow from the books. That strong cash flow was aided and increased in no small part over the last eight years by the movies and the attendant publicity and attention they generated. The number of copies sold of LOTR during the film years was several fold over what would have been normally sold without them. CT may well not be fond of the films, but the bottom line of the Estate was enriched considerably.

Now, with rumors of a settlement, it looks like a new infusion of cash will come into the Estate. They deserve it and are entitled to it. That new infusion of film money makes it even more remote that they would ever consider selling the SIL rights. The Estate is certainly not in the same financial position that JRRT was when he sold the film rights to HOBBIT and LOTR.

[Padme]

I just said I hate when posts disappear but ......