×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Tolkien Trust Okays Hobbit Movie

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the if-i-say-he-is-a-burgla-a-burglar-he-is dept.

Lord of the Rings 325

saudadelinux writes "Last year, the Tolkien Trust, which administers JRR's estate, bellowed stentoriously, 'Youuuu shall not make The Hobbit!' and sued New Line Cinema for 'a reported $220m (£133m) in compensation, based on breach of contract and fraud.' New Line, chastened, has settled for an undisclosed sum of money. The Trust has given its blessing to New Line for Guillermo del Toro to film The Hobbit and for New Line to make other films based on Tolkien's work. Much rejoicing!"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

325 comments

Tolkien has the depth of a inflatable pool. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29365161)

The title says it all.

Re:Tolkien has the depth of a inflatable pool. (2)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365453)

it's like the marvel/disney wedding: we know we might only get sparkling shit which only lifeless nerds will consider a masterpiece whilst flooding the imdb with yet another 10 (that's very manichean for a self proclaimed intelligent person btw) so that the top-250 gets even messier.

why don't you just play in your microwave ovens?

Re:Tolkien has the depth of a inflatable pool. (4, Funny)

Sebilrazen (870600) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365967)

The well of your grammatical talent...

has the depth of an inflatable pool.

Hollywood accounting (4, Interesting)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365199)

Too bad, I wouldn't have minded too much if their Hollywood Accounting [wikipedia.org] had backfired on them.

Re:Hollywood accounting (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29365223)

I'd say it did backfire on them. They settled because they don't want their books to be opened in court.

Re:Hollywood accounting (3, Interesting)

owlnation (858981) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365583)

Too bad, I wouldn't have minded too much if their Hollywood Accounting had backfired on them.

If there's one wikipedia page (and in reality there's 10,000s), that sums up the inadequacies of wikipedia, it's that Hollywood Accounting one. That page is 100% hearsay, gossip column and TMZ-esque gossip presented as fact and wikiality.

While there are (likely) many instances of creative accounting practices in Hollywood, the truth is very guarded. And the truth is NOT displayed on that wikipedia page. There is nothing to see on that page that's of any value to the human race.

Re:Hollywood accounting (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29365713)

If there's one wikipedia page (and in reality there's 10,000s), that sums up the inadequacies of wikipedia, it's that Hollywood Accounting one. That page is 100% hearsay, gossip column and TMZ-esque gossip presented as fact and wikiality.

Phew, thank God a random Slashdot user saved us from that evil Wikipedia page, because of course, since we can fully trust Slashdot users always check their facts before posting.

Hooray! GDT!!! (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Cowar (1608865) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365207)

Now we can see gollum transformed into an eyeless demon with the eyes on the palm of the hand. I mean we saw it in pan's labyrinth as well as in hellboy 2, so why not the hobbit? That said, he does good work, I'm eagerly anticipating his dark and symbolic take on a (for tolkien) light and fun child's book.

Re:Hooray! GDT!!! (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29365689)

Pan's Labyrinth sucked.

Like The Hobbit it was slow, depressing, and uninspired. The fantasy sequences were too short to draw in the audience. It was a ripoff of The People Under the Stairs [imdb.com] that catered to dirty old men in trench coats who enjoy watching pre-pubescent girls scamper in their skivvies for 2 hours. It's a Hounddog [imdb.com] for fantasy fans.

Re:Hooray! GDT!!! (3, Insightful)

Khashishi (775369) | more than 4 years ago | (#29366269)

Pan's Labyrinth may not be for everyone, but it's is certainly among the top tier in movies. Maybe you should stick to Disney if you want something less depressing.

Re:Hooray! GDT!!! (2, Insightful)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365875)

I'm just looking forward to a (hopefully) creeped out Mirkwood. I have high hopes for del Toro being able to make people squirm in their seats as the party traipses through it.

Unfortunately, I kind of dread what he's going to do with the physiognomy of the Wood Elves... I fear it may be too fairy-tale-ish, some kind of caricature of what we have all grown accustomed to from the three Jackon films.

OTOH, if the whole movie is done in del Toro's fairy-tale style, then it may work... but that's a big risk for New Line to take.

Re:Hooray! GDT!!! (1)

forrie (695122) | more than 4 years ago | (#29366277)

I'm taking a "wait and see" attitude about this. I really liked the darker tones of Guillermo del Toro's films - I sometimes wonder what his interpretation of the Lord of the Rings series might have been. I'm not sure what else you can do with this storyline, but I'm betting del Toro will at least do something "interesting."

I'm not privvy to the details of the spat between the Tolkien Trust and New Line, but this isn't the only time there has been some form of disagreement. If you recall, the last director, Peter Jackson, had some lawsuit going on. I'm starting to get this vision of Tolkien Trust as being a group of Gollums, trying to protect "the precious" to whatever end. Maybe it's presumptuous to say that, but if they're not opening their books and not releasing details, then you have to be suspicious of their motives.

I had imagined Tolkien Trust as being responsible for licensing and essentially protecting, to whatever degree, the legacy from Tolkien's work. Has it gone farther than that?

Oh great (4, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365247)

MORE walking.

Re:Oh great (0, Flamebait)

slinks (1627039) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365347)

and more ultra fail combat moments from the main character. How many times did froto get stabbed ?

Re:Oh great (4, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365797)

and more ultra fail combat moments from the main character. How many times did froto get stabbed ?

What do you expect from a hobbit dragged out of a peaceful life? Might as well drag the average american off their couch, hand them a sword and throw them in a duel to the death. The only real issue is to make it semi-credible that he survives it all, not merely be wounded.

Re:Oh great (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365809)

If you were expecting Frodo to be a combat monster, congratulations. You have totally missed the entire point of the story. Go you.

aww (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365355)

Should have held out for the full amount, and a nice juicy written judgment from the court detailing new line's apparent sketchiness.

The exclamation point (4, Funny)

Hoplite3 (671379) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365357)

Actually, the new title is "The Hobbit! The Musical! On Ice!" It's as faithful to the original you can be and still have it involve lots of ice dancing. Which is not very faithful at all.

Re:The exclamation point (1)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365419)

And Smaug is now the Abominable Snow Monster from Rudolph, who is hoarding misfit toys. Gandalf becomes that snowman-narrator-thingie, and Frodo's nose glows red mysteriously...

Re:The exclamation point (2, Insightful)

hort_wort (1401963) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365597)

I really enjoyed the music from the ole animated Hobbit. I pretend I'm an orc and run around singing it sometimes while chasing animals up trees.

Re:The exclamation point (1)

monktus (742861) | more than 4 years ago | (#29366219)

I'm surprised Disney didn't offer more money so they could make Hobbit School Musical III.

Guillermo del Toro (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365365)

Who? (sigh). I guess it's gonna have a vastly different feel from the LOTR trilogy (at best). Or worse.

Re:Guillermo del Toro (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29365393)

If you want to see an example of his work, watch Pan's Labyrinth. It's very well done. If The Hobbit is half as good, I'll be pleased.

Re:Guillermo del Toro (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365537)

If you want to see an example of his work, watch Pan's Labyrinth. It's very well done.

Yeah, or Hellboy and it's sequel, which most certainly are not.

Re:Guillermo del Toro (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365735)

My impression of de Toro's movies is that he rides on the coattails of his director of photography, special effects, art, etc. Visually appealing, but how much of that is because of him?

Re:Guillermo del Toro (3, Interesting)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365877)

Pan's Labyrinth is a marvelous fable. The eye-candy is secondary. All I've seen is snippets of Hellboy, which is standard action-movie fare.

But on Pan's Labyrinth alone I'm willing to give the credit. No one can create something with that much depth in meaning, character, and visuals on a fluke.

Maybe his stuff isn't that great in translation? Especially when he's working in translation, like Hellboy.

Re:Guillermo del Toro (4, Insightful)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#29366027)

But on Pan's Labyrinth alone I'm willing to give the credit. No one can create something with that much depth in meaning, character, and visuals on a fluke.

Funny, I disagree. Let's take the Wachowski brothers. In The Matrix, they created one of the great action movies of our time, blending incredible visuals with an engrossing (if admittedly derivative story) and pulled it off masterfully. And yet, the followups were *terrible*, and what have they done since? Speedracer. *gag*

Similarly, George Lucas has been credited with some fine films (Star Wars and Indiana Jones come to mind... neither have the pure artistic sense of Pan's Labyrinth, but they're still fine movies), and yet Return of the Jedi and the Star Wars prequels were *terrible*.

Hell, I'm sure there are *many* other directors who, for one reason or another, just managed to get lucky with a strong script, a strong cast, a good editor, a good director of photography, etc, and managed to put something together that, as a whole, exceeded their singular abilities.

Maybe his stuff isn't that great in translation? Especially when he's working in translation, like Hellboy.

Bah, that's just a bullshit excuse. The man is a director, not a screenwriter. If he can't take existing material, understand it, internalize it, and then transform it into a decent film, that's his fault, plain and simple.

Now, to be fair, I suspect Hellboy and it's sequel also suffered from a plain ol' shitty script, but even so, at minimum, del Toro should've seen that and said 'no' to the project at the outset. But he didn't. So he either has no sense of artistry, or he's a sell-out. Frankly, I can't figure out which. But neither is a good thing.

Re:Guillermo del Toro (1)

PotatoFarmer (1250696) | more than 4 years ago | (#29366373)

My impression of de Toro's movies is that he rides on the coattails of his director of photography, special effects, art, etc. Visually appealing, but how much of that is because of him?

There's a lot more there than just imagery, though. In both Pan's Labyrinth and The Devil's Backbone, the visuals, while striking, are there to serve the story. If you contrast del Toro's work in the above two films with something like late-period George Lucas output, the difference is notable.

Re:Guillermo del Toro (2, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365463)

LotR was godawful. It's a pretty unfilmable book. The Hobbit will be much more amenable to being made into a movie.

Re:Guillermo del Toro (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29365693)

wow, it's not even tagged as troll

Lotr Godawful???? It could not have been better unless you miss Tom Bombadill and other stuff that does not relate to the main story.

Instead of 3 movies we would have had 5 movies.

I think Peter jackson's rendition is incredible as most fan do, your just pissed that they did not include every gay moments and songs in it.

I hope they kill all songs from the hobbit because frankly, a musical of bilbo's adventure is where were heading.

I know it makes it more believable but every 4 page in the book as a god damn sonng, i could done without it.

Re:Guillermo del Toro (1)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365553)

I would have liked to see Jackson's take on it, if for no other reason than to have a consistency with his take on Lord of the Rings. Jackson wasn't particularly true to the LOTR storyline, but he ended up telling a very LOTR-like tale, and translated some of Tolkien's original memes (particularly Gollum/Smeagol's internal conflict) brilliantly. I'd hate to see too much of a jarring difference in the interpretation of JRR's work that is also jarringly inconsistent with Jackson't interpretation/retelling.

The Hobbit is a standalone work, but it would be nice to be able to watch it, then watch the LOTR trilogy, and feel like it has some kind of consistent feel and flow throughout.

Let's hope del Toro can pull this one off. I'm not familiar with any of his past work, so I can't judge yet.

Re:Guillermo del Toro (2, Interesting)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365607)

Guillermo del Toro: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0868219/ [imdb.com]

Director of Mimic, Blade 2, Hellboy, Hellboy 2, and Pan's Labyrinth.

I'm quite happy with him as director of The Hobbit as his body of work is excellent. And, yes, it will have a vastly different feel from the LotR trilogy. And that's not a bad thing given his vision for fantasy/faerie tales is beautiful.

Re:Guillermo del Toro (1)

tecnico.hitos (1490201) | more than 4 years ago | (#29366131)

And, yes, it will have a vastly different feel from the LotR trilogy. And that's not a bad thing given his vision for fantasy/faerie tales is beautiful.

I hope so, because, as a book, The Hobbit does have a vastly different from th LotR trilogy .

well done, Tolkien "trust" (3, Insightful)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365371)

Sue company for "an undisclosed sum", then allow them to go ahead and make the movie(s).

LUDICROUS JIBS!

Or:

1) sue movie company
2) profit
3) allow movie company to make said movie(s)
4) profit again.

To hell with the underpants gnomes, this is the true 4 step process right here.

Re:well done, Tolkien "trust" (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365391)

Yup. They'd be stupid not to see it.

'Course, New Line had to play along if they ever wanted to get the movie rights.

Re:well done, Tolkien "trust" (4, Informative)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365763)

well done, Tolkien "trust" Sue company for "an undisclosed sum", then allow them to go ahead and make the movie(s).

Maybe you're not familiar with the modern film industry. Here's how it works. You own rights to a book series. A movie company wants to make it a film. They offer you a percentage of the take, you sign a contract, they make a couple of movies, and a pile of cash. Then they tell you the movie flopped and the millions they made were actually from unrelated marketing of the characters to fast food and all the money from the box office was spent on advertising. Sorry, we'll pay you nothing for the rights and just try to make us. So you go to court and 5-10 years later if you had enough money to keep up in the courts you win and actually see the first money.

The difference here is the film company wanted make another movie with rights from the person still suing them for not having paid for the last movie, so said person (trust actually) told them to go to hell until they were paid for the first one. So the film company settled and paid them for the first movie and now the lawyers get to sit down and start over with the hope that the contract for the second movie will be more ironclad and they'll actually be paid in a timely fashion. Maybe they'll just demand a flat fee up front. In any case, I'm inclined to place the blame for this mess on the very, very deceptive and crooked movie industry.

Re:well done, Tolkien "trust" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29365801)

Best of all, none of the "estate" actually wrote the material, other than the poor efforts from one of the kids trying to get in on the act. They're all living off the back of the recent success of Middle Earth media. Give it time, they'll sell the rights for a billion sooner or later. Expect Disney to come knocking.

Re:well done, Tolkien "trust" (4, Insightful)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365893)

New Line made $6 billion and tried to screw Peter Jackson and the Tolkien Trust what they were owed (actually I still think they got screwed being paid $220 million). Instead of letting Jackson and the Hobbit make them a new pile of money, New Line tried to keep it all themselves. Have to wonder why the management of New Line still has a job making business decisions like that. Shareholders should be angry it has taken this long to settle holding up the next movie. And anytime anyone wants to give me $6 billion dollars for a $220 million payment and what ever Jackson got, and the potential for a new big pile of cash let me know there would be no waiting or bad faith like New Line.

Good? (0)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365373)

The Trust has given its blessing to New Line for Guillermo del Toro to film The Hobbit and for New Line to make other films based on Tolkien's work. Much rejoicing!

I don't think we know whether or not to do much rejoicing until we see it.

Contrast The Matrix vs. the 3rd Matrix movie, or Star Wars Episode IV vs. Episode I, or early vs. later Aliens movies. Or, more optimistically, Peter Jackson's 2nd and 3rd LOTR movies vs. his first one.

I'm just saying that some sequels/prequels can be bad enough that we wish they'd never gotten legal approval to exist.

Re:Good? (1)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 4 years ago | (#29366313)

I'm not saying that I'm a fan of the 3rd Matrix movie, but it was all a package deal. Unlike Star Wars 1-6, the movie was thought up as a trilogy. If you don't like the ending, it's hard to say you do like the first 2. It's more of a philosophical journey through the ramifications of postmodernism than it is an action flick overall. That shocker kind of threw the audience they drew for a loop they couldn't handle.

Then again, I have a feeling that by the end of LOST, I'm going to say I liked the first 3 seasons better, even if it was all ultimately for nothing.

Tolkien Trust? (1, Insightful)

NoYob (1630681) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365451)

I see. A bunch of lawyers, administering the IP for the grandkids and great gradnkids who are sitting on their asses because of the work of their (great) grandfather.

It's one thing for the author/creator to benefit from his hard work and maybe even the kids if the author creates something and dies before the copyright runs out. But having IP becoming an income stream for the great grandkids? I'm not sure that's what copyright was intended to do.

Re:Tolkien Trust? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29365587)

well.... if the copyright didn't extend to well-after the holder's death..... tony and guido would be doing a killer business clearing the way for the big bad media companies.... and much cheaper than options and movie rights.

Re:Tolkien Trust? (1)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 4 years ago | (#29366335)

If the guy didn't live long enough to see his books made into movies, it's a shame to see movie studios ripping the ideas off and passing them off as their own. I'd rather see the family prosper for it. If he were able to sell the movie rights himself, they would have inherited what was left of the proceeds anyway.

God, Not Another One (4, Insightful)

segedunum (883035) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365509)

Apparently, the Tolkien Trust is supposed to be a charity. Businesses masquerading as charities seems to be de jour these days, not to mention the tax benefits....... I digress.

Anyway, am I the only person who actually read The Hobbit, thought it was a great book, read Lord of the Rings and thought it was good, if long-winded, and then absolutely hated the films? I honestly don't see what others seems to see in those films at all. They're far more long-winded than the book(s), lacking in focus, lacking in atmosphere, poorly acted in parts (mostly because of the lack of focus), has some very poor imitation of 'The Mission' as its soundtrack, very pretentious and not exactly faithful to the book(s) at all. "Lean forward!" - WTF?! They're certainly not trilogies that will live in the memory like Star Wars (the proper trilogy, that is). I just don't want to see a book that's better than the Lord of the Rings getting the same Peter Jackson personal massacre treatment as well as all the fan worship that seems to go around with them.

Yes, you are the only one (3, Informative)

Henriok (6762) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365589)

Anyway, am I the only person who actually read The Hobbit, thought it was a great book, read Lord of the Rings and thought it was good, if long-winded, and then absolutely hated the films?

Yes. You probably are the only one. Or at least one of an alarmingly small minority.

Re:Yes, you are the only one (-1, Troll)

segedunum (883035) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365767)

Pffffffff. I seem to have hit this:

...as well as all the fan worship that seems to go around with them.

The defence of these films is pretty nauseous at times.

Re:God, Not Another One (5, Insightful)

rawiswar (1605157) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365629)

Its just a matter of opinion. To this day, I think Star Wars (almost all of them) were crap.

Re:God, Not Another One (1)

JerryLove (1158461) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365687)

Anyway, am I the only person who actually read The Hobbit, thought it was a great book, read Lord of the Rings and thought it was good, if long-winded, and then absolutely hated the films?

Over the age of seven? Yes, I think you are.

They're certainly not trilogies that will live in the memory like Star Wars (the proper trilogy, that is).

They are not trillogies at all. They are not even a single trillogy (which requires three complete but linked stories); The Lord of the Rings is one story broken (almost abitrarily) into three segments.

Re:God, Not Another One (0, Troll)

segedunum (883035) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365945)

Over the age of seven? Yes, I think you are.

Everybody else must be under the age of seven then if you don't find Gimli's "You're gonna have to toss me" daft. Maybe you have to be a little bit older to see Frodo decyphering 'speak friend and enter' and not Gandalf in some attempt to make Frodo the hero of the film as daft. The examples you can pick out of how awful these films are are numerous, but you never get anything back that refers to what you actually referenced. See fanboy comment. I could also read any book part faster than watch the film part.

They are not trillogies at all.

Bit of a mis-speaking or whatever on my part, but not germane to the point really.

They are not even a single trillogy (which requires three complete but linked stories)

If you say so................

The Lord of the Rings is one story broken (almost abitrarily) into three segments.

They are three books linked into a trilogy and have always been published as such, even if they might not have been originally intended that way, but, we're being pdeantic now to avoid discussing the criticism.

Re:God, Not Another One (1)

RingDev (879105) | more than 4 years ago | (#29366023)

The Lord of the Rings is one story broken (almost abitrarily) into three segments.

You should really read the book some time. If you had, you would have known that it is actually 6 books, published in pairs.

Also, get a spell checker. It only takes a second to run, makes you look smarter, and after you've corrected the same word for the 15th time, you'll actually start to remember the correct spelling.

-Rick

Re:God, Not Another One (3, Informative)

Zantac69 (1331461) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365867)

Anyway, am I the only person who actually read The Hobbit, thought it was a great book, read Lord of the Rings and thought it was good, if long-winded, and then absolutely hated the films?

I honestly enjoyed both the books and the movies. Granted - some of the stuff in the movies is crap - so total crap that I winced (yes - "lean forward" almost made me vomit in my mouth a little) - but some was just as I imagined it when I was under my covers reading it by flashlight after "bedtime". Was it the BEST MOVIE EVAR? Hell no - not even close - but it was a good flick that I dont mind popping in to watch as "junk food."

I have high hopes for "The Hobbit" and look forward to it - especially the parts with Smaug. I just hope he does not screw it up.

Re:God, Not Another One (2, Interesting)

greymond (539980) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365879)

Based on the amount of movie, merchandise and people who keep buying the DVD's I would say you are in the minority with your feelings. Personally, I don't want them to make another one, but they will, my wife and I will probably see it with friends, and if it's a good movie (this doesn't mean 100% true to the book or my envisioning of the characters) then we might even buy the dvd er blue ray.

Re:God, Not Another One (3, Interesting)

Albert Sandberg (315235) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365889)

I never came pass the first book when I tried to read it as a kid because it was so damn booring.

The movies kicked ass.

I now read the books again and I think that the movie adds a lot (in all sense of the word) but I really think the books are still a bit boring. I think they followed the books as good as they possibly could.

I really hope Jackson gets do do all movies in JRR's world.

Re:God, Not Another One (3, Interesting)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#29366017)

I read The Hobbit, loved it (even though I generally am not a fan of fantasy fiction*), read LOTR and thought it was very good if a bit depressing in parts, and loved the movies as well. Most movies don't follow their books very closely, but Jackson seemed to get the "feel" right; the characters and scenery pretty much matched what I saw when I read the books, even if it didn't follow the books exactly. Far better than the Ralph Bakshi [wikipedia.org] version.

I have the extended versions on DVD, but I iked the theatrical versions better.

Re:God, Not Another One (1)

anarchyboy (720565) | more than 4 years ago | (#29366195)

You're certainly not the only one I'm sure there are plenty of people who disliked the films after enjoying the books.

Re:God, Not Another One (1)

Mr_Magick (996141) | more than 4 years ago | (#29366291)

Anyway, am I the only person who actually read The Hobbit, thought it was a great book, read Lord of the Rings and thought it was good, if long-winded, and then absolutely hated the films?

Nope, your not the only one. I fall into this group also. I loved reading The Hobbit, but could hardly make it through The Lord of the Rings.

A Sickening State of Affairs (0, Troll)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365515)

I am really disgusted that a movie studio (yeah, MPAA sucks, etc.) needs to get permission from the bottom-feeding welfare leaches of a long-deceased author to make a film. Worse yet, they have to pay for the privilege.

Re:A Sickening State of Affairs (1)

alen (225700) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365837)

what's the big deal of dealing with creative works like any other form of property that can be passed down to family?

Re:A Sickening State of Affairs (5, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365971)

That's what they get for bribing Congress to grant them perpetual copyrights. Serves them right.

Re:A Sickening State of Affairs (2, Interesting)

crimperman (225941) | more than 4 years ago | (#29366007)

Surely the point of such trusts is to prevent the original works from being abused^H^H^H^H^H^H interpreted by media companies set on profit and little else. Without this trust Disney (or somebody else, they are not the only cuplrits) would have done the same thing to LotR as they did with the Jungle Book & Peter Pan.

Derivitive work (3, Interesting)

arkham6 (24514) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365529)

" and for New Line to make other films based on Tolkien's work"

Oh dear God, NO!

Re:Derivitive work (1)

Anonymusing (1450747) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365963)

Remember the Ewok movies? It'll be like that, but with Hobbits. There will also be Saturday-morning cartoons. And "Lord of the Rings" Lego sets of famous scenes: Gandalf versus the Balrog, for example.

Of course, we don't want to let boys have all the fun, so there will be a line of Elven Princess dolls for the girls, along with suitable makeup and "tree dollhouses". (They tried a line of Dwarf Princess toys, but the test marketing came back negative.)

Finally, in the end, we'll have some cross-marketing opportunities, with Aragorn making an appearance in an episode of Sesame Street (sword-fighting Oscar, no doubt), and Legolas having an archery match with Harry Potter and friends.

Re:Derivitive work (1)

julesh (229690) | more than 4 years ago | (#29366047)

" and for New Line to make other films based on Tolkien's work"

Oh dear God, NO!

Yes, coming soon: The Adventures of Tom Bombadil: the movie.

Re:Derivitive work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29366263)

To quote from the source, "New Line plans to release The Hobbit in 2011, followed by another movie drawing from other Tolkien works."

The only 'other works' Tolkien has with enough content to be movie-worthy come from The Silmarillion. I was only barely able to read that dragging, pedantic work of the histories of Tolkien's universe.

It might be good, but only if one story is chosen to portray. I'll suspend my judgement until I've seen New Line's Hobbit.

One Trust to rule them all (4, Funny)

burtosis (1124179) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365581)

One Trust to find them, One Trust to bring them all and in the darkness bind them...

Courtesy of Melkor Publishing Inc...

Another one? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29365617)

I liked the first one enough:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSHLGnexe-w
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit_(1977_film)

The Silmarillion (1)

teac77 (1152415) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365691)

First there was Peter Jackson vs New Line Cinema. Then there was HarperCollins Publishers Ltd. and JRR Tolkien Estate vs New Line Cinema. No doubt there will be a few more lawsuits before they start producing the film adaptation of Tolkien's "The Silmarillion" (in at least two parts, of course).

Re:The Silmarillion (1)

wfstanle (1188751) | more than 4 years ago | (#29366001)

The Silmarillion is a book with many stories loosely joined by a single theme. The individual stories are disjointed enough that making a single movie would be terrible. Most of the stories are fleshed out enough that you could make a single movie about them. The question is, "will the movie going public go to see them?" I think that the Silmarillion is a niche subject that many LOTR fans haven't read. How do you expect the general population th get interested.

Re:The Silmarillion (1)

crimperman (225941) | more than 4 years ago | (#29366145)

> The Silmarillion is a book with many stories loosely joined by a single theme.

Just as Pulp Fiction or Crash were films in the same vein. It's not impossible to film such stories but it is hard to pull off. Especially when the book in question is bloomin' hard to follow in the first place.

> I think that the Silmarillion is a niche subject that many LOTR fans haven't read. How do you expect the general population th get interested.

Agree it's a niche subject but the public will go because they'll think it's the same sort of thing as LotR. It's not of course but they won't find out until they're in their seats.

Re:The Silmarillion (1)

Pepebuho (167300) | more than 4 years ago | (#29366179)

I totally agree. To make the Silmarillion in Movie format would be a huge mistake. I think they should be bold enough and go for a series (1 year only, no more) or mini-series format. There is enough material for a whole Season (24 episodes) !!

once an idea or book (1)

nimbius (983462) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365739)

becomes popular enough, and makes a substantial enough money, a holding corporation or trust is established to ensure the profits of said idea or book are maximized.

the trust doesnt care about the storyline of the hobbit, the storylines of tolkiens other books, or their characters. The trust is designed to ensure that, through proper market research and extrapolation, tolkiens ideas and books generate the most revenue possible for the trust through vending tie ins, toys, additional books, and movies of course.

so when the trust blocked the movie once, it was likely because the money for the story wasnt provided, the idea in its cinema interpretation at the time wasnt viable or did not maximize profit-curve according to market research by the trust.

If tolkien had written the movie, directed the movie, or had any part of the film you could jump for joy, however please remain seated until the profits come to a full and complete stop. This is nothing more than a business venture into your interests, which pertain to trusts and entertainment groups only when they can be exploited in exchange for profit. the movie is an interpretation designed to cater to fans of books written by an artist. in another sense, this is very similar to seeing your favorite chewing gum introduce a line of gummy bears based on the gum. nothing has been given to the community but another means of consumption and access to a product (presumably that non gum chewers would avoid.)

for those who cry "i like the book better" youve mistaken the point. your likes and dislikes are proportional to profit, not storyline or artistic merit in this case.

my point is, Trusts are not artists. a director in this case would be no more than a thief with the permission of a kindly veiled corporation to reproduce art, so why do we as slashdotters care if this great book makes film?

Re:once an idea or book (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29365927)

> my point is,...

not a bad one.
You sure took a long time making it though

Re:once an idea or book (1)

happy_place (632005) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365931)

This doesn't dismiss the fact that the studio licensed the rights to a book franchise, made three billion dollars on the movies and then claimed not to make a single buck in profits, a piece of which would go back to the licensee. The "trust" (or licensee) would be foolish not to do something. Defending the movie studios is just as stupid as anything else. If this were to happen to an author that was actually alive, would you still be so anti-trust?

What has the Tolkien Trust ever done? (0, Troll)

Frenchman113 (893369) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365781)

What has the Tolkien Trust ever done? J. R. R. Tolkien wrote the classics known as the Lord of the Rings. His son published several accompanying volumes and other minor works. What has the "Tolkien Trust" ever done? That's right, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. These are nothing but scum profiting off the work of dead men. The only proper solution for trash like this is to saw off their limbs and burn them alive. Fuck copyright and fuck the Tolkien "Trust."

How about we make movies based on other books (1)

greymond (539980) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365787)

Seriously, we have a great LotR trilogy, and while other hobbit movies have sucked, we really don't need to keep rehashing this stuff. Lets move past remakes and start producing movies based on some of the newer fiction out there.

Re:How about we make movies based on other books (1)

reidiq (1434945) | more than 4 years ago | (#29365907)

I don't know, but The Hobbit was a great read and I'd like to see it as a motion picture and not as a cartoon. The cartoons were just awful.

Re:How about we make movies based on other books (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#29366163)

I just finished reading Thud [wikipedia.org] , and although I'm generally not a fan of fantasy fiction (Tolkien and Pratchett are exceptions), I'd love to see a movie version of it, if well done and if Pratchett writes the screenplay.

Re:How about we make movies based on other books (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29366357)

Supposedly the film rights have been granted for Robert Jordan's Eye of The World.

Stentoriously bellowed? (1)

ratbag (65209) | more than 4 years ago | (#29366173)

Stentorian, yes, though not in this context. I believe "stentoriously" may be an unnecessary neologism.

If Guillermo del Toro directs this movie. . . (1)

Adaeniel (1315637) | more than 4 years ago | (#29366187)

Something is definitely going to have eyes in places other than its face.

Silmarillion next!! (3, Insightful)

czarangelus (805501) | more than 4 years ago | (#29366355)

Next he needs to film the Silmarillion. I expect at least two movies, possibly up to three. Needs more Valar. The two trees, Uglinaut, the duel between Melkor and Feanor, the fall of Numenor... it would kick ass.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...