Still waiting for a cite for the story in the OP. I think Wumpus’s theory about negotiation tactics (to nail down the Hobbit rights) is pretty solid, but until I actually see an article and get the background I won’t know for sure.
A cite for the story in the OP? I didn’t see anything to cite. The studio is supposedly slavering for more LOTR but then, well, they would be wouldn’t they? Isn’t it almost self-evident that they’d make a lot of money? Was there mention of this being possible, except from the OP’s guess in the last para about forthcoming movies?
And further posts have suggested that this is NOT possible (except perhaps The Hobbit??)
Christopher Tolkien being nasty? Well maybe. But if he thought the films would have offended Tolkien, or that they ruined his vision, it would be expected to hate them, wouldn’t it. (Though I haven’t heard what he’s said, maybe he was over the top.)
From the OP:
Presumably this “word” exists somewhere. I’d like to see it.
That Hollywood would contemplate such an idea only proves that the lies that Melkor, the mighty and accursed, Morgoth Bauglir, the Power of Terror and of Hate, sowed in the hearts of Elves and of Men is a seed that does not die and cannot be destroyed; and ever and anon it sprouts anew, and will bear dark fruit even until the latest days.
Guinastasia writes:
> Whoa…I have to say-why is Christopher Tolkien so nasty? I mean…wow.
Perhaps because he believes, as do I and a lot of longtime Tolkien fans that I know, that the movies stink as adaptations of Tolkien. Start a thread about how good the films are elsewhere, please. My point is not to defend this view but to make it clear that this view is common.
There’s no reason that the Tolkien family should be swayed by dumptrucks full of money. The Lord of the Rings is the biggest-selling novel of all time. They don’t need the money. They’re not going to be swayed by the money they would be offered for any movies, because it’s not going to be very much. Authors of source novels don’t tend to get that much money. Certainly, the amount Tolkien got in 1968 when he sold the rights to The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit are pitifully small compared to the profits made by Peter Jackson and (even more clearly) Saul Zaentz on the movies.
As quoted from the USA Today article on Tuesday, Jan. 20th entitled: “More of the Rings magic”:
The bulk of the article is referring to the onslaught of various fantasy related titles coming from the studios in future years, such as the Chronicles of Narnia, Lemony Snicket and the Elric Saga.
However, I find it interesting that there are hints of further LOTR titles, should the various rights issues be worked out. I’m not surprised that there would be an interest in transforming the world of Middle Earth into a franchise that could last for years to come.
So he is as mistaken as you and the few people you know that are Tolkien fans?
No.
I was always under the impression that Christopher Tolkien was a bit of a wank.
He comes across to me as someone that’s never gotten out from under his father’s shadow and is resentful of the fact.
Plus I read somewhere when Fellowship was coming out that his big objection to the movies was that it would be getting “the masses” enjoying LOTR and this was something that wasn’t desirable. Unfortunately no cite because I read that 3 years ago but I’m not making it up.
Christopher is a trained Oxford don, and has made pretty much of a career out of being the man who edits the scholarly adaptation of the evolution of his father’s ouevre – which, it must be admitted, he’s eminently well qualified to do. A certain small amount of what’s canonical “Tolkien” – notably the maps – is his, and he was present and involved through most of the evolving writing of LOTR (and, much younger, of the Hobbit as well).
I don’t see him as a dog in the manger so much as a man who has devoted his life to guarding and exhibiting his father’s vision – and that he has a problem with adaptations to other media doesn’t surprise me.
RikWriter writes:
> So he is as mistaken as you and the few people you know that are Tolkien
> fans?
I’ve met hundreds of Tolkien fans in my life. I went to two Tolkien conferences just in the last six months, one in the U.S. and one in the U.K. These had mostly longtime amateur Tolkien fans at them, but they also had some academics who specialized in Tolkien. I debate Tolkien nearly every day with longtime Tolkien fans on an E-mail mailing list. I’ve spent a substantial part of my adult life reading and talking about Tolkien. I first read the books in 1969, I started reading secondary literature about Tolkien within a couple of years of that, and I went to my first Tolkien conference in 1977. Many of the longtime Tolkien fans I know don’t like the movies.
I didn’t say that all, or even most, Tolkien fans didn’t like the movies. I said that “a lot of longtime Tolkien fans that I know” didn’t like them. I didn’t order you to start a thread. I was saying that I’m not going to debate the issue in this thread. (Indeed, I don’t want to debate the point anywhere. My experience is that no one listens to the other side in arguments of this sort. I have better things to do with my time than endure the snide comments of people who refuse to believe that a longtime Tolkien fan could possibly not like the movies.) My point was that Guinastasia seemed surprised that Christopher Tolkien was downright nasty in his response to the movies. I’m not surprised at all.
(And, incidentally, the point of the above was not to show that “Well, I’m more of a Tolkien expert than you are.” My point above was to show that I’ve known many Tolkien fans over many years. My point was also not to say that longtime Tolkien fans are the only ones who can offer an opinion or that they are generally better people than others. My point was that there are lots of people who like the books and who don’t like the movies.)
And I never said that you said that. As you just said, a minority of the Tolkien fans you know disliked the movie.
Well, except you did.
[QUOTE}
I have better things to do with my time than endure the snide comments of people who refuse to believe that a longtime Tolkien fan could possibly not like the movies.[/QUOTE]
I would never say that. As RFK once said, “One fifth of the people are against everything, all the time.” That applies to art as well.
If you listen to Jackson’s commentary on the Two Towers DVD, you’ll hear him talk about his idea for a spin-off TV series featuring Treebeard—he solves crimes, but very slowly. 
I didn’t say that a minority of the Tolkien fans that I know didn’t like the films. What I said was, "Perhaps because he [Christopher Tolkien] believes, as do I and a lot of longtime Tolkien fans that I know, that the movies stink as adaptations of Tolkien. That’s not saying that a majority of the longtime Tolkien fans that I know don’t like the films. That’s not saying that a minority of the longtime Tolkien fans that I know don’t like the films. I haven’t done a scientific survey of the subject. I know that a lot of longtime Tolkien fans don’t like the films.
And you made the following statement which is clearly wrong and just shows that you know nothing about me:
> So he is as mistaken as you and the few people you know that are Tolkien
> fans?
Far from it being a few people, I have known hundreds of Tolkien fans.
And you claim:
> Well, except you did [order you to start a thread].
No, what I said was:
> Start a thread about how good the films are elsewhere, please.
What I was saying that I don’t want to debate the merits of the films in this thread. It’s too much of a hijack. I was saying that the proper place to debate that would be in a separate thread.
Look, when I say, “I’ve noticed that a lot of people believe X,” it doesn’t mean “I want to debate the issue of X.” The fact that I think that there are many people believing X is not the same as saying that I have to persuade you of that fact. In particular, if you want to believe that the films are good, I’m not interested in arguing the point. And it’s not true of my position (or that of other people who don’t like the films) that we’re representative of the position that “One fifth of the people are against everything, all the time.” I like lots of things, as do the other people who happen not to like the Peter Jackson films. Claiming that we don’t like everything is a strawman argument.
First of all Wendell, you misunderstand the quote. It’s not saying that the SAME one fifth are against everything every time, it’s saying NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO there will be at least one fifth of the population that doesn’t like it.
Second, for someone who doesn’t want to argue the subject, you sure are spending a hell of a lot of time…arguing the subject.
I said that I didn’t want to argue about whether the films are good or not. That’s not what I did. I was trying to show that you misunderstood what I said.
So…you’re arguing about whether or not I understood what you didn’t want to argue about???
I won’t comment on Christopher Tolkien’s opinion of Peter Jackson’s LotR films (though I love them, personally), as he has the right to think how he likes. However, I must admit to feeling more than a little shocked at how he essentially disowned one of his own sons just because he openly liked the films. :eek:
Recalling that Tolkien’s family was the first audience of his tales, and that Tolkien at times even wrote stories primarily for his children (especially Christopher), it’s not surprising that Christopher Tolkien has an emotional attachment to the story.
Just to clarify, I am not sure if the grandson was cut off from the will, or disowned. To the Chinese, both meant pretty much the same thing, so I am not if I am correct in this context.
Going out on a limb though, I wonder if Christopher Tolkien ever did see the show himself? If not how did he come to the conclusion. The upsetting thing is it seems he arrived at the conclusion even without giving the movie a chance at all. No comments on how good the movies were. As movies they rocked, as books they sucked.
Most movies do suck as books…you can’t fit a bookmark in em ANYWHERE and it’s damned hard to stick them in a pocket and take them with you to the park…
Haha, perhaps I shall have said, “As movies they rocks, but as literature they sucks?” Actually, that won’t be accurate either, isn’t it? The movies did not capture the motivation, geography, timeline and events of the novel 100% correctly - in fact, if you insist on comparing the movie and the book side by side, the movie will suck. So I rather enjoy the movie as it is, without bringing the book into the cinema. It’s hard to read in the dark and torchlight annoys the hell out of everybody.
Anyway, this is getting OT, so let me contribute something more.
Considering that J.R.R Tolkien didn’t really publish much, and only did write 2 novels and one children story about Middle-Earth, I find it strange people would speculate that there are more movies about Middle Earth coming out. Also, it is a considerably higher risk to film anything about Middle Earth than before. It would draw comparisons with PJ’s earlier works and the producer/director must match up to PJ’s enthusasim and energy level.
However, it will be good to see some of Tolkien’s more obscure work, such as Out of the Talkative Planet, The Notion Club Papers, Farmer Giles of Ham or Roveradom.