Tolkien Trust Okays Hobbit Movie 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!"
Hollywood accounting (Score:5, Interesting)
Too bad, I wouldn't have minded too much if their Hollywood Accounting [wikipedia.org] had backfired on them.
Re:Hollywood accounting (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hollywood accounting (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Hollywood accounting (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Finally, an Anonymous Coward has stepped forward to put an end to this pointless bickering, warning us not to trust random Slashdot users. Because of course, we can fully trust Anonymous Cowards. They are anonymous, what would they have to gain by lying?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Seeing you claim, it is hard, to be, incorrect, with the use of the, comma, I would invite, you, to read this sentence, and say it i
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
So, you are claiming that the lawsuits referenced on that page are complete fabrications? Why don't you correct it, then?
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks Michael Eisner!
Re:Hollywood accounting (Score:5, Informative)
That page is 100% hearsay, gossip column and TMZ-esque gossip presented as fact and wikiality.
Yeah, if you don't count all the references and links to well-established facts in examples of Hollywood Accounting.
Which of course you don't count, because your post is 100% garbage anti-WP FUD. You said nothing of value to the human race. The WP page has you beat on that count by miles and miles.
Re:Hollywood accounting (Score:5, Interesting)
Forest Gump had a budget of $55M, it grossed $677M. According to Hollywood Accounting the movie did not make a profit.
Hooray! GDT!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 fo
Re:Hooray! GDT!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
nobody said Pan's Labyrinth isn't a good film. What they said was, its not the style required for the film adaptation of The Hobbit.
The last thing we want is for Smaug to rear up, spread his wings and look like an evil peacock.
Re: (Score:3)
They weren't trying to protect anything. JRRT had sold the movie rights to LOTR several years before he died (he famously once said "cash or kudos"; either a damned good film or lots of money). The Estate could not prevent or in any way meaningfully force the producers or Jackson to do anything, but the "cash" part still applied. The Estate was due royalties from the movie, and New Line tried to screw them. Since the rights to The Hobbit were not sold by JRRT, the Estate could use that as leverage, and
Oh great (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh great (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0sc-gS9AqM/ [youtube.com] nsfw
Re:Oh great (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
If you were expecting Frodo to be a combat monster, congratulations. You have totally missed the entire point of the story. Go you.
The exclamation point (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Funny)
Guillermo del Toro (Score:2)
Who? (sigh). I guess it's gonna have a vastly different feel from the LOTR trilogy (at best). Or worse.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
I agree with the premise that one movie can be a fluke, but del Toro has more of a track record than that. As serious fables he's done both "Pan's Labyrinth" and "The Devil's Backbone". They were both eerie and both had beautiful imagery, but only the former really relied upon special effects. As for the Hellboy movies, well they were very cheesy but I'm not sure that makes them bad. They were light CGI-athons based upon a comic book. He could have gone all serious and dark with them, but I think the lighte
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"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."
Yes, Del Toro was really lucky to find a strong script for Pan's Labyrinth --- flowing from his fingertips.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Del Toro was really lucky to find a strong script for Pan's Labyrinth --- flowing from his fingertips.
You *do* realize that writers can get lucky, too, right? Or did you not watch the Matrix sequels?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fewer people have seen "The Devil's Backbone," but it's another good Del Toro flick for people who would die before seeing Hellboy. That's actually the movie that made me a fan of his; Pan's Labyrinth came out later.
As far as I can tell, Del Toro is actually a fan of cheesy comic books, and did the Hellboy movies for that reason.
The point being, the guy isn't a one-track director. He directs arty foreign magical realist cinema and cheesy American action flicks. It's not "getting lucky", it's working in diff
Re:Guillermo del Toro (Score:4, Insightful)
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*
Even more immediately, Peter Jackson made Rings which is damn close to perfect, a balance of beautiful imagery, effects, and acting and then goes right on to make King Kong, a movie as artless as Rings was artful. It was loud, dumb, unnecessary, and a perfect example of how Hollywood gets it wrong. Kong is exactly what I feared Rings might be back when the project was first announced. I find it impossible to believe the same man was involved with both.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
LotR was godawful. It's a pretty unfilmable book. The Hobbit will be much more amenable to being made into a movie.
Re: (Score:3)
Not, I think we can safely assume, by a woman.
Depends. Is she dressed like Luthien?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
T
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
well done, Tolkien "trust" (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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" (Score:5, Informative)
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" (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the book is still better though... (Score:2)
I guess it's better to have "The Hobbit" than "Lord of the Rings II, Saruman rises AGAIN" or something :)
Re: (Score:2)
God, Not Another One (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
I find it likely that we are the quiet majority, actually. Those films barely made any sense because they skipped so much. It is very unlikely that the washed masses were able to pick up a story from it. The first one was good, but the second ones were just too dull. I couldn't even finish watching the third one. The movie was over-hyped, and a lot of people just got swept up in it.
Hopefully The Hobbit will be better. This book lends itself slightly better for a movie format, since there was action and come
Re:God, Not Another One (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Well you would be wrong.
Most people I know are huge fans of the books, but like me loathe the movies, I saw them in the cinema and thought, well.. nice enough movies, but not keepers. I've tried watching them again when broad casted on TV, but always end up switching channel.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 MOV
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
You're certainly not the only one I'm sure there are plenty of people who disliked the films after enjoying the books.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Erm the Tolkien Trust does give out a substantial amount to the WWF amongst other things (seem to be big on fixing church roofs from a quick google) and well charities are businesses, they just don't pocket the profit. Hey you can't give money to people if you haven't made it.
Derivitive work (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh dear God, NO!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Narn i [C]Hin Hurin please.
Re: (Score:2)
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-marketin
Re: (Score:2)
" 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: (Score:2, Funny)
One Trust to rule them all (Score:4, Funny)
Courtesy of Melkor Publishing Inc...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if anyone... (Score:2)
Magician would be epic, if done well.
Re: (Score:2)
On a side note, while I was a lad working in retail books, I met Bill Fawcett, the sci-fi writer and editor. He indicated that Feist's work came out of an AD&D campaign he (Feist) DMed. Now that would have been a most awesome campaign! It makes me want to pull out my old bag of dice...
How about we make movies based on other books (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Stentoriously bellowed? (Score:2)
Stentorian, yes, though not in this context. I believe "stentoriously" may be an unnecessary neologism.
Yes! (Score:2)
Silmarillion next!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Del Toro (Score:5, Insightful)
He wrote Pan's Labyrinth (one of the more disturbing films I've seen in the past, well, my life) and Hellboy 2. He has a distinctive style but the creatures in both films had a similar look and feel about them. I never saw Hellboy 2, only the previews, but the look of the film was similar, even with the light-heartedness of Hellboy's character. If nothing else, he should give an interesting take on the Hobbit, and it will likely be very different from Jackson's more traditional view of the epic series of books.
The Lord of the Rings books, to me and to many others, consolidated our mythology of elves and orcs, swords and dragons. If you've played nethack (rogue), then you've probably heard of lembas wafers (elven waybread from the books). If you've played D&D, then you'll know the orcs, goblins, trolls...all based on mythology...were fleshed out in the Lord of the Rings and transferred to the D&D system. Only elves, oddly, are slightly different, probably for balance reasons as in the books they are basically superhuman immortals, better than humans in almost every way.
The movies held true to the main plot, especially if you watched the extended editions (which saved Faramir's character). I have no idea why they wasted 5 minutes of movie time on the collapsing bridge scene in Fellowship of the Ring ("No one tosses a dwarf!"). I guess is it was just to build up to the balrog scene, which was pretty much spot on in terms of what the book says it should be. I don't love the movies since I'm a big fan of the books and find them better. But I appreciate them and find them very watchable. I know people who never read the books that consider those movies some of the best ever made, and I can see why. They really are a spectacle in terms of movie-making, especially the huge battles at the end of the 2nd and 3rd films. There's a fair amount of cheese and kiddish happenings, but they really do play to all audiences.
Re: (Score:2)
two huge reasons I loved the 1st movie: the Balrog scene, and the scene where Borimir becomes a human pin cushion. I liked the book version of Borimir's death better, but the way it was modified for the screen worked. Oh, and Gandalf.
My only major complaint is they let the elves speak native and used subtitles but had all the other non-humans speaking English. They should have had the other races speaking native as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't troll in daylight.
Re: (Score:2)
"Dawn take you all, and be stone to you!"
Re: (Score:2)
what's the big deal of dealing with creative works like any other form of property that can be passed down to family?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A Sickening State of Affairs (Score:5, Insightful)
That's what they get for bribing Congress to grant them perpetual copyrights. Serves them right.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
What's really weird is, Disney's behind a lot of the perpetual copyright laws. Seems they wanna be free to loot and pervert what they will with impunity, but I'm a 'pirate' if I wanna draw
Re: (Score:2)
So that's why you're giving New Line the car your parents gave you - you didn't want to be a "bottom-feeding welfare leach".
Re: (Score:2)
In 1969, JRR himself signed a movie deal contract with United Artists [sfscope.com] stating what his estate gets, and what level of control they have. While the copyright implications are still distasteful, this is a case of folks just plain not honouring their contract, in clear bad faith.
Re:Tolkien has the depth of a inflatable pool. (Score:5, Funny)
has the depth of an inflatable pool.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree entirely.
Re:What has the Tolkien Trust ever done? (Score:5, Insightful)
Boo fucking hoo, somebody inherited something of value, and you didn't. Yeah, it's an imaginary something, but in our system even decades old imaginary ideas are valuable. That's life in capitalist, corporatist America. Why single out the Tolkien trust? Because Tolkien should be free to be adapted and misused by every leach out there, not just the official leaches? You REALLY aren't thinking this through.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
> 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
Re: (Score:2)
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) !!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Years ago I was in a debate about that. It would be impossible to make a movie. A miniseries, certainly, but not a movie. Now you could take some of the stories, in particular I think Beren and Luthien and the Turin Saga could be adapted to film.
I suspect as production costs drop for special effects, within twenty years we might see it economically feasible to do the thing as some sort of miniseries. The Ainulindale would be kind of tough, because all it really is is a whole lot of singing by angelic cr
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
There's a simple way to avoid that problem. Copyrights should go back to unconditionally expiring after 28 years, dead or alive.
If the author don't save enough of their proceeds into their 401k during the first three decades after publication, then they can get off their asses and earn some money doing new work, just like the rest of us would have to.
It's simply ridiculous that this stale old story is still under the monopolistic control of Tolkein's hysterical heirs.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You're crazy. Ron Perlman makes everything better. Whatever it is. He'd be a perfect Bilbo Baggins. Or at least the voice of Smaug. Or better yet, just dress him up in a big Smaug costume!