The Hobbit as movie?

[Fundin Snowarm]

Working within the Middle-Earth established within the LOTR films, what changes would you think were necessary to have a solid continuity? Why? & any additions?

[Arthur_Vandelay]

Before I put my two cents worth in about that, I thought I'd draw people's attention to the following article in the Melbourne Age (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/07/1078464707484.html).


Long wait likely for The Hobbit

Peter Jackson won't be returning to the Shire any time soon.

The Oscar-winning director is planning to film The Hobbit, the prequel to The Lord of the Rings trilogy by JRR Tolkien, but two studios must first fight over legal rights to the film.

Jackson said New Line Cinema has the rights to make the movie, but MGM has the rights to distribute it.

"I guess MGM's lawyers and New Line's lawyers are going to have a huge amount of fun over the next few years trying to work it all out," he told reporters recently in Los Angeles. "I'm obviously busy for a couple of years on King Kong so those lawyers can just go at it for a long time."

The Hobbit tells the story of Bilbo Baggins, who found the ring and eventually passes it on to his nephew, Frodo Baggins. Frodo's journey to Mount Doom to destroy the ring is the basis for the Rings books and films.

Jackson said if he were going to direct the movie, he'd want it to feel like the rest of the trilogy. Jackson last week won an Academy Award for best director and shared the adapted-screenplay award with his two co-writers for the final Rings film, The Return of the King.

"I'd want Ian McKellen to be back as Gandalf, I'd want it to feel like it was part of the same mythology that we've done with Lord of the Rings," Jackson said.

The Return of the King swept this year's Academy Awards, winning all 11 categories in which it was nominated.

Jackson is in the middle of remaking King Kong, due out next year, starring Aussie actress Naomi Watts.

- AP

[Barliman Butterbur]

Working within the Middle-Earth established within the LOTR films, what changes would you think were necessary to have a solid continuity? Why? & any additions?

Assuming that PJ made the film, there are some passages from "Unfinished Tales" that would make a perfect intro for a film version of "The Hobbit." They take place a week or so before Gandalf makes his visit to Bilbo. In them, he is extremely worried about Sauron's rise in power and strength, and especially his possible use of Smaug the dragon as a WMD.

"As fortune would have it," he runs into Thorin Oakenshield at the Prancing Pony. It seems that Thorin has been stewing and stewing, building up a dangerous head of steam about the fact that Smaug sits atop the dwarf treasure Under the Mountain. He wants vengeance on Smaug for all the death and destruction he caused, and to regain his treasure.

Gandalf sees a possibility: perhaps he can use Thorin's anger to help in a plan to destroy the dragon and keep Sauron's power down. So they hatch a plan involving Bilbo. At first Thorin is contemptuous of the whole idea (he doesn't think much of hobbitry), but Gandalf convinces him that here at last is a viable plan to take vengeance on Smaug and recover the treasure.

I think that would be an excellent intro to The Hobbit, just as going back to The Silmarillion was an excellent opening for FOTR. Otherwise, you can be sure we shall have more PJ filmic whimsies and plot embroideries to deal with again, and that will launch more anti-PJ frenzy, you can be sure!

(By God, I can't wait to see that red dragon zooming in over the Long Lake and attacking the town of Dale and the surrounding woods like a gigantic flame thrower — to say nothing of the Battle of Five Armies, and of course the trolls William, Bert and Tom — to say nothing of the spiders in the woods!)

Lotho

[Jan]

My first thought is that he would have to make some "adjustment" to the Elves. They seemed very different in the Hobbit and LOTR.

[Sarah]

Do you think that they'd cut out beorn like in the cartoon?

[duilwen]

oh dear. as much as i'd like to see this story adapted, by far simpler than the lord of the rings, please please i hope it's not peter jackson does it... :(


there will be no excuse (in my book, that is) for any change in the story .. not that i find pj any for the changes he made in his films, but it's another forum...


i'm not even sure now, if there would be any need for an introduction (lotho, your ideas are great though !!! :))... so many people worldwide know gandalf and bilbo by now... not like when we opened the book for the first time, nobody had pre-chewed the work for us !!!!

[Hikaru]

I like your ideas Lotho.
I'd like to see the two Ians as Bilbo and Gandalf, simply because I can't think of anyone who could do the parts better.
Hmmm.....who would do the voice of Smaug??
It's got to be evil, wrecked and smoky-sounding but still somehow appealing.

[Aulë]

I could imagine Peter Jackson giving Nancy Cartright the role as the voice of Smaug...
"Eat my shorts!" ;) :p

As I've said before, PJ has the opportunity to re-use quite a few of the actors from LotR. Gandalf (McKellen), Bilbo (Holm), Legolas (Bloom), Galadriel (Blanchett), Arwen (Tyler), Elrond (Weaving), Gollum (Serkis) and Saruman (Lee) could all be used again. Knowing PJ, he'd love to go into more 'depth' with the White Council's actions at Dol Guldur, and Galadriel and Saruman could make their cameos.

One thing that I've been thinking about is what New Line would do if Jackson's latest project (King Kong) is a flop. Perhaps they'll lose confidence in him and go for a fresh face to direct The Hobbit?


Btw, totally off topic:
IMDb
Hollywood superstar Nicole Kidman (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000173/) has been signed to star in a new movie version of CS Lewis (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0507000/)' classic children's novel The Lion The Witch And The Wardrobe (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0363771/). Studio bosses at Disney - who are backing the project - were desperate for Kidman to play the White Witch, and her two kids with ex-husband Tom Cruise (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000129/), Isabella, 11, and Connor, nine, convinced her to say yes. A Tinseltown source says, "Nicole's kids don't pay great attention to her career - she's just mom to them. But when she mentioned she had been asked to star in the movie they went wild. They even asked for jobs as extras." Kidman even made a secret visit to New Zealand last week to see locations and meet the crew. Walt Disney chairman Richard Cook recently said of the movie - which is due to start filming later this year - "It's a very, very ambitious project and one that we believe could be very important to the studio."

[Barliman Butterbur]

...so many people worldwide know gandalf and bilbo by now... not like when we opened the book for the first time, nobody had pre-chewed the work for us !!!!

"Pre-chewed the work!" Hah! Do you realize, Duilwen, that you have inadvertently created the kernel of an idea for an entire new industry: Pre-digested Tolkien booklets! Instead of "see D*ck run" we could put out similar books for toddlers: "See Bilbo run;" "See Smaug eat ponies," "See Frodo vanish," etc. (Do you suppose that PJ, Phillipa and Fran could be Guest Editors for some of these?;):p

Lotho

PS — this censorbot — really!!!

[Barliman Butterbur]

I like your ideas Lotho.
I'd like to see the two Ians as Bilbo and Gandalf, simply because I can't think of anyone who could do the parts better.
Hmmm.....who would do the voice of Smaug??
It's got to be evil, wrecked and smoky-sounding but still somehow appealing.

It would be great to have the two Ians, but unfortunately, Ian Holm is simply too old now to play Bilbo at the age he was in The Hobbit.:(

Lotho

[Barliman Butterbur]

I could imagine Peter Jackson giving Nancy Cartright the role as the voice of Smaug...
"Eat my shorts!" ;) :p

Hehehehehe!

As I've said before, PJ has the opportunity to re-use quite a few of the actors from LotR. Gandalf (McKellen), Bilbo (Holm), Legolas (Bloom), Galadriel (Blanchett), Arwen (Tyler), Elrond (Weaving), Gollum (Serkis) and Saruman (Lee) could all be used again.

I think there would be a serious age problem, no? By the time PJ (I assume, and New Line) would be finally ready to actually film the Hobbit, all those actors would be considerably older than they were during LotR, and The Hobbit begins at least 60 years BEFORE LotR. There would need to be a quantum leap in makeup and prosthetic technology!;)

King Kong a floperoo, eh? Interesting conjecture...PJ a one-hit wonder...hmmmm....

Lotho

[duilwen]

Ian Holm is simply too old now to play Bilbo at the age he was in The Hobbit.:(

Lotho


do you really think such a tiny detail would stop the make-up/special effects armadas ? or maybe it will intice jackson to create a bilbo like he created a denethor.

moi ? *****ing about the movies ? and i'm off topic to top it all....

[duilwen]

I think there would be a serious age problem, no? By the time PJ (I assume, and New Line) would be finally ready to actually film the Hobbit, all those actors would be considerably older than they were during LotR, and The Hobbit begins at least 60 years BEFORE LotR. There would need to be a quantum leap in makeup and prosthetic technology!;)

King Kong a floperoo, eh? Interesting conjecture...PJ a one-hit wonder...hmmmm....

Lotho


hahaha; I hadnt' read that post before posting mine... what's with you and age btw lotho ? ;) ;) ;)

seriously. it hasn't bothered these film-makers to make frodo look like a 15 yr-old. :mad: :mad: :mad: so they can't be that picky about one more betrayal. why not set the hobbit after the lord of the rings, and modify tolkien's works once more ?


i am out of here. this thread i mean. i get too mean. and i have to abide my newbie's shyness !!!!! ;)

[Tinuvien21]

Yes, I heard that. It's just not going to be the same without Ian H. But if they did make a movie of the Hobbit...to have 2 different Bilbo's?

[Flame of Udûn]

I think there would be a serious age problem, no? By the time PJ (I assume, and New Line) would be finally ready to actually film the Hobbit, all those actors would be considerably older than they were during LotR, and The Hobbit begins at least 60 years BEFORE LotR. There would need to be a quantum leap in makeup and prosthetic technology!;)Not really, as Gandalf, Arwen, Galadriel, Saruman, Legolas, and Elrond would look identical and Gollum would look about the same.

[Arthur_Vandelay]

Not really, as Gandalf, Arwen, Galadriel, Saruman, Legolas, and Elrond would look identical and Gollum would look about the same.

Yes, but the actors who played them would have aged about 10 years or so. Gollum wouldn't be a problem for obvious reasons, and I suppose Gandalf and Saruman are buried under all that facial hair anyway. Then again, cosmetic and prosthetic technology would have advanced 10 years as well.

I think the real trick will be getting Christopher Lee and Peter Jackson to kiss and make up.

[Barliman Butterbur]

Not really, as Gandalf, Arwen, Galadriel, Saruman, Legolas, and Elrond would look identical and Gollum would look about the same.

First we have to get King Kong out of the way, which is going to take at least a couple of years. Let's suppose further that it takes at least 5 years from then to get through the legalities, and PJ is ready to film, and all those film stars who took the original parts were all available (a dodgy proposition). The film would take at least several months to film, and several more for postproduction. So let's say the film would be ready for release 9 or 10 years from today. All the actors would look that much older, and different from the way they looked in the original film. That ain't supposed to happen with Elves, and only a little bit with wizards! The audience would really have to be willing to suspend disbelief...

Lotho

[Flame of Udûn]

Sorry, I thought you meant that the actual characters would have to look younger.

[Eledhwen]

The possibility of a Hobbit prequel has been issued by someone as a press release, as my children saw it as a news item on a BBC junior news programme (in England). I didn't see it myself, so I don't know where the information came from.

[aragil]

Eledhwen- glad to see you're here, as I remember you posting some rather enticing sequences from the Hobbit. Those were of course more in-line with the tone of the Lord of the Rings than with TH, but that is fine by me. Personally, I'd think the Gandalf/Dol Guldur stuff would work well enough in flashback. That would allow for an ultimate James Bond-style opening: Smaug attacking the Mountain. What fun to go through a transition from Smaug smoking out the Dwarves to Bilbo smoking quietly in the Shire.

[Greenwood]

Lotho,

Your idea of using the material from Unfinished Tales as an intro to The Hobbit is a good one, but will never happen during Christopher Tolkien's lifetime. Even if New Line and MGM come to an accommodation, that is only the rights to The Hobbit; Unfinished Tales is a whole other question. I don't think Christopher Tolkien has sold the film rights of any of his father's posthumously published works to anyone. Given Christopher Tolkien's behavior in cutting off his own son for having anything to do with the current films, I can't see him letting Jackson (or probably anyone else) use anything from Unifinished Tales.

[Fechin]

I just hope they can reach an agreement I mean it would bring in another boatload of cash. Well they have plenty of time snice Jackson is off making King Kong. It should be a great film if it ever happens I think it will happen but I dont expect it to come out anytime soon.

[Eledhwen]

Eledhwen- glad to see you're here, as I remember you posting some rather enticing sequences from the Hobbit. Those were of course more in-line with the tone of the Lord of the Rings than with TH, but that is fine by me. Personally, I'd think the Gandalf/Dol Guldur stuff would work well enough in flashback. That would allow for an ultimate James Bond-style opening: Smaug attacking the Mountain. What fun to go through a transition from Smaug smoking out the Dwarves to Bilbo smoking quietly in the Shire.Yes! Great opening. When do you start? (Peter who?)


Greenwood, where did you get the information that CT cut his son off for having truck with the films?

[Barliman Butterbur]

Lotho,

Your idea of using the material from Unfinished Tales as an intro to The Hobbit is a good one, but will never happen during Christopher Tolkien's lifetime. Even if New Line and MGM come to an accommodation, that is only the rights to The Hobbit; Unfinished Tales is a whole other question. I don't think Christopher Tolkien has sold the film rights of any of his father's posthumously published works to anyone. Given Christopher Tolkien's behavior in cutting off his own son for having anything to do with the current films, I can't see him letting Jackson (or probably anyone else) use anything from Unifinished Tales.

I'd like to know more about CT's actions with his son. That's a pity. But there are reasons:

In reading from Tolkien's letters (and I don't feel like running to the book to quote chapter and verse right now), what I discovered was, that Christopher was the child that Tolkien considered to be most like himself in temperament and values. He said as much to Christopher in some of the letters, and went further: he said that when he was writing LOTR, he was actually writing it with Christopher in mind! Would it please Christopher, would Christopher approve of this or that passage, and so forth. He let his son in on all his secrets during the whole writing process.

So you can imagine that Christopher is exceptionally protective — some would say overprotective — of his father's works. We may not agree with what he has done with his father's output, but at least we can understand it. It is as if his father made him the sole curator, a duty which CT has made his life's mission.

Lotho

[Greenwood]

I saw Christopher's son being interviewed on CNN News a few weeks ago. They did not go into the specifics of Christopher's refusal to have any involvement with the films but it dated to before they were made. Christopher's son thought that the family should have been involved in the films (once again there were no specifics that I remember about what sort of involvement that meant). As I remember, CT's son (I keep referring to him that way because I don't remember his name -- sorry) looks at the films as a way of introducing more people to his grandfather's writings. Anyway CT, so disapproved of his son expressing support for the films that he has not spoken to him since before the films came out. (I have the impression that CT cut his son out of the family estate over this, but I will not swear to that -- I saw the story a few weeks ago and didn't take notes. One of JRRT's other grandchildren -- not a child of CT -- flew to New Zealand and was actually an extra on one of the films. I can only assume CT is not talking to him either.) And people thought the disagreements on TTF got nasty! :eek:

[Barliman Butterbur]

I saw Christopher's son being interviewed on CNN News a few weeks ago. They did not go into the specifics of Christopher's refusal to have any involvement with the films but it dated to before they were made. Christopher's son thought that the family should have been involved in the films (once again there were no specifics that I remember about what sort of involvement that meant). As I remember, CT's son (I keep referring to him that way because I don't remember his name -- sorry) looks at the films as a way of introducing more people to his grandfather's writings. Anyway CT, ao disapproved of his son expressing support for the films that he has not spoken to him since before the films came out. (I have the impression that CT cut his son out of the family estate over this, but I will not swear to that -- I saw the story a few weeks ago and didn't take notes. One of JRRT's other grandchildren -- not a child of CT -- flew to New Zealand and was actually an extra on one of the films. I can only assume CT is not talking to him either.) And people thought the disagreements on TTF got nasty! :eek:

Well that is indeed a very sad thing. None of it is worth the estrangement of one's own child! I'm sure it would have been calamitously grievous for poor JRR, had he been alive to know of it.

The other child you speak of is Royd Tolkien, Tolkien's great-grandson, who had a walk-on in ROTK (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/3324387.stm)?

Lotho

[Greenwood]

I'm sure it would have been calamitously grievous for poor JRR, had he been alive to know of it.

I completely agree.

And while I greatly appreciate CT's work in publishing The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales and the HoME series, I think CT should consider the likelihood that his father would never have approved of much of that material being published when he decides to cut himself off from his own son.

[aragil]

CT's son is named Simon. A bit more on the issue can be found here (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?p=246645)

Eledhwen- personally, I liked all of your ideas for adapting the Hobbit to a more 'adult' tone, I just thought the dragon intro would be quite good. Of course, I don't think I have anything near the talent (or willpower) to pull off any screenwriting. However, whoever makes it (and I hope PJ does, just for consistency in storytelling) I will definitely see it!

[Parrot]

The other child you speak of is Royd Tolkien,
"Royd" ? "Royd" ???!

He must have been a difficult delivery for his Mum.

[Eledhwen]

You have a problem with 'Royd', Parrot? It's no stranger than 'Reuel' to me.

I think there is little doubt that there is now a market for Tolkien's work being adapted for film; and New Line have first refusal on The Hobbit (unless the option has expired since I heard). Eventually, I expect to see the Great Stories of the Silmarillion on screen, especially now they've discovered New Zealand (or was that Captain Cook?). I note that filming starts there this summer on The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe.

[Parrot]

You have a problem with 'Royd', Parrot? It's no stranger than 'Reuel' to me.

"Roid" has a certain connotation where I come from...

[Eledhwen]

Are you American? Who was it that said we are two nations divided by a common language? I ask again if anyone knows of an American equivalent to www.effingpot.com, so I can understand Parrot's posts.

I think Peter Jackson will make The Hobbit, because he has the location on his doorstep. Whether we will recognise the end product is another story. I think he'll have to change the Trolls, if he wants over-eights to watch it. Tolkien would have, if he had known what was to follow.

[Parrot]

Are you American? Who was it that said we are two nations divided by a common language? I ask again if anyone knows of an American equivalent to www.effingpot.com, so I can understand Parrot's posts.

I think Peter Jackson will make The Hobbit, because he has the location on his doorstep. Whether we will recognise the end product is another story. I think he'll have to change the Trolls, if he wants over-eights to watch it. Tolkien would have, if he had known what was to follow.
I know you have hemor"rhoid"s in England, I have had words with a few of them on this forum. :)

[Eledhwen]

I know you have hemor"rhoid"s in England, I have had words with a few of them on this forum. :)Oh, I get it! (eventually :rolleyes: ) We spell it differently in England (keeping the haem=blood on all such words), but that wouldn't affect the other end (if you'll pardon my slightly unintentional pun). The colloquial word for haemorrhoids here is 'piles', and Piles Tolkien doesn't have much of a ring to it.

So, not only have we gone off subject here, but via Tolkien's descendant, we have descended to discussing embarassing bowel conditions. At last read, I don't actually remember any such reference in The Hobbit, and I'm sure I would have heard if Peter Jackson was a sufferer. Old wives tales tell us that sitting on a cold step could bring the condition on, and PJ does always wear shorts.

I'm sure the film will be made. They already have a Misty Mountains location, Rivendell, and the petrified trolls (if they haven't been disassembled) which will save them couple of hundred quid. I expect someone at Weta is already working on the dragon, in the hope of getting the contract.

[Barliman Butterbur]

...I'm sure the film will be made. They already have a Misty Mountains location, Rivendell, and the petrified trolls (if they haven't been disassembled) which will save them couple of hundred quid. I expect someone at Weta is already working on the dragon, in the hope of getting the contract.

Wahoo! Where did you get that info, I wanna go check it out!

Lotho

[Eledhwen]

Sorry, Lotho, it isn't info, it's speculation.

[Barliman Butterbur]

Sorry, Lotho, it isn't info, it's speculation.

Aw, nertz! :mad:

Lotho

[Jesse]

Hi,
I do not want to see the Hobbit as a movie. That's just me.

[Fuzzy_Feet88]

oh dear. as much as i'd like to see this story adapted, by far simpler than the lord of the rings
I really agree with you on that point, but if PJ does make a movie, it can't get any worse than the cartoon version of The Hobbit... That was just bad...

[Burb]

My first thought is that he would have to make some "adjustment" to the Elves. They seemed very different in the Hobbit and LOTR.

i was thinking that too. the elves in "the hobbit" seem more like dreams than actual beings.

[Eledhwen]

i was thinking that too. the elves in "the hobbit" seem more like dreams than actual beings.The Mirkwood Elves begin to become less distant and more 'real' when Bilbo surrenders the Arkenstone. I would have liked it if Bilbo and Gandalf (and Beorn?) spent some time with Thranduil at the end, but it would have just been fellowship and merrymaking, not real 'story', and wouldn't do for a film. The Elves at Rivendell were very merry indeed; they had sobered up considerably by the time Frodo got there (though him being dangerously wounded and bringing the mightiest evil in Middle-earth with him might have had something to do with that). I would also like to see a flashback to Gondolin as Elrond examines the swords - paving the way for the next film :p

[Flame of Udûn]

Lotho,
Your idea of using the material from Unfinished Tales as an intro to The Hobbit is a good one, but will never happen during Christopher Tolkien's lifetime. Even if New Line and MGM come to an accommodation, that is only the rights to The Hobbit; Unfinished Tales is a whole other question. I don't think Christopher Tolkien has sold the film rights of any of his father's posthumously published works to anyone. Given Christopher Tolkien's behavior in cutting off his own son for having anything to do with the current films, I can't see him letting Jackson (or probably anyone else) use anything from Unifinished Tales.Though it is true that they could not use The Quest of Erebor, remember that there is a reduced form in Appendix A to The Lord of the Rings, which they do have the rights to.

[rs691919]

Given Christopher Tolkien's behavior in cutting off his own son for having anything to do with the current films, I can't see him letting Jackson (or probably anyone else) use anything from Unifinished Tales.

Again, these are just rumors. The story of Simon and Christopher Tolkien is only one-sided, and Simon Tolkien's story has never been complete. He has certainly encouraged the press to believe that the feud with his father has to do with the movies, because that puts CJRT in a bad light. But there are certainly issues involving the Tolkien Estate which have been underreported.

The most substantial rumor deals with the ordering of the Tolkien Estate once CJRT dies. Apparently CJRT set up an "executive board" to deal with licensing issues. His second wife (Simon's stepmother) was apparently placed on the board, but Simon was not. Whether this means that Simon has been "cut off" financially is unclear, but I've never heard him make that claim--rather he complains about being cut off from his grandfather's "literary inheritance". That would imply that he doesn't get to make decisions regarding licensing of rights that the Estate still holds; it says nothing of whether he still gets royalties. Interestingly enough, Simon Tolkien recently published a book called, guess what? The Stepmother.

CJRT did make one statement (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/1697884.stm) regarding the movie, and buried within it was an oblique reference to his son:


The suggestions that have been made that I 'disapprove' of the films, vent to the extent of thinking ill of those with whom I may differ, are wholly without foundation.


Finally, it should be noted that if you are seeking to publish something on Tolkien for critical or educational purposes and wish to quote Tolkien in those works, the Estate grants permission with relative ease. It's Harper-Collins (who owns the publishing rights) that presents the difficulties.

Oh, and here's a link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=%2Farts%2F2003%2F02%2F24%2Fbotolk24 .xml) to an article which details some of the family feud.

[Greenwood]

Again, these are just rumors. The story of Simon and Christopher Tolkien is only one-sided, and Simon Tolkien's story has never been complete. He has certainly encouraged the press to believe that the feud with his father has to do with the movies, because that puts CJRT in a bad light. But there are certainly issues involving the Tolkien Estate which have been underreported.

They seem to be rather substantial rumors. The story you provide a link to appears to provide quite a bit of background to them rather than refuting them. Family feuds tend to have long histories with rarely a single cause so I do not find it surprising the Tolkien family feud might not be an exception. The timing given in the article: 1998 - Simon and Christopher disagree ove the estates involvement in the prospective films and limits contact with his son; 1999 - Christopher sets up a board to oversee the estate and does not include his only son; lends credence to the idea of a connection between the father's and son's disagreement over the films and the estrangement.

[rs691919]

"I think what my father found really outrageous was the fact that I would cross him," says Tolkien. "He felt that was treachery. But that isn't the only reason my father has had enough of me. There are other reasons that I can't go into."

These relate to the family trust, of which Simon is a trustee. He is legally forbidden to discuss it in public.

Again, this is only one side of the story, and it comes solely from a disgruntled Simon Tolkien (who has hawked this story to just about anyone who'll listen). However, he's not even allowed to talk about the Tolkien family trust (as distinct from the Estate), and he's not allowed to discuss how much money he has received. There is a lot missing from this story (such as how the relationship with the stepmother plays into this), and therefore it is impossible to conclude that the movies are the source of contention.

Having said this, it will be interesting to see which road the Tolkien Estate takes once CJRT dies. One cannot imagine that it will be so protective of JRRT's work as the years pass.

[Greenwood]

Again, this is only one side of the story, and it comes solely from a disgruntled Simon Tolkien (who has hawked this story to just about anyone who'll listen). However, he's not even allowed to talk about the Tolkien family trust (as distinct from the Estate), and he's not allowed to discuss how much money he has received. There is a lot missing from this story (such as how the relationship with the stepmother plays into this), and therefore it is impossible to conclude that the movies are the source of contention.

Having said this, it will be interesting to see which road the Tolkien Estate takes once CJRT dies. One cannot imagine that it will be so protective of JRRT's work as the years pass.As I said, family feuds usually have long histories and rarely a single cause. If as you say Simon Tolkien "has hawked this story to just about anyone who'll listen", I am sure news organizations have tried to get a comment from Simon's father when they ran the stories. I would certainly like to hear Christopher's side. Evidently CT has chosen to remain silent. That leaves the field to Simon.

[rs691919]

It leaves the field to him, yes. It does not make his story any more likely. Personally, I'd rather that personal family feuds stay private; it appears Christopher feels the same way.

[Greenwood]

It leaves the field to him, yes. It does not make his story any more likely. Personally, I'd rather that personal family feuds stay private; it appears Christopher feels the same way.As long as Christopher stays silent, it is the only story we have, and we have no way to say whether Simon's is any more likely or unlikely than your suppositions. Evidently Christopher does have lawyers; he could always issue a statement with his side of the story. You cited one earlier, so he knows he has that option. Personally, I doubt Simon is telling the whole story, but it is the only story we have.

[rs691919]

Yes, it's the only story we have. So what? Does that make it true?

[Greenwood]

Yes, it's the only story we have. So what? Does that make it true?Because it is the only story we have, does that make it untrue?

[rs691919]

Because it is the only story we have, does that make it untrue?

Ah, answering my question with another question...brilliant rhetorical device! I'll answer yours, and then maybe you can answer mine.

No, it doesn't make it (Simon Tolkien's story) untrue.

[Greenwood]

Ah, answering my question with another question...brilliant rhetorical device!As opposed to the brilliant rhetorical device embodied in: "So what?" Sort of on a par with: "Oh, yeah?" :rolleyes:


I'll answer yours, and then maybe you can answer mine.I answered the question already, but since you evidently missed it:As long as Christopher stays silent, it is the only story we have, and we have no way to say whether Simon's is any more likely or unlikely than your suppositions. Evidently Christopher does have lawyers; he could always issue a statement with his side of the story. You cited one earlier, so he knows he has that option. Personally, I doubt Simon is telling the whole story, but it is the only story we have.

[rs691919]

As opposed to the brilliant rhetorical device embodied in: "So what?" Sort of on a par with: "Oh, yeah?" :rolleyes:


I answered the question already, but since you evidently missed it:

Actually, no sarcasm was intended; it is indeed a brilliant rhetorical advice, for it allows you to avoid a "yes" or "no" answer. The post which you quote seemingly gives an answer (although I hadn't asked the question as of then), but then is followed with more words to confuse the issue (at least in my mind). Whether CJRT has lawyers, whether he could give a statement, whether Simon's is the only story is all irrelevant. So, I ask again: does the fact that we only have Simon's version make his story true?

[Greenwood]

Actually, no sarcasm was intended; it is indeed a brilliant rhetorical advice, for it allows you to avoid a "yes" or "no" answer. The post which you quote seemingly gives an answer (although I hadn't asked the question as of then), but then is followed with more words to confuse the issue (at least in my mind). Whether CJRT has lawyers, whether he could give a statement, whether Simon's is the only story is all irrelevant. So, I ask again: does the fact that we only have Simon's version make his story true?I see. So because I answered your question before you asked it, the answer doesn't count. (Please note the lack of a question mark at the end of the last sentence. I am showing my rhetorical nimbleness by not replying to your question with a question. :rolleyes: )

I have now answered your question twice, both before and after your asked it, but you seem to be having difficulty comprehending the answer. Perhaps three times is the charm. To repeat: As long as Christopher stays silent, it is the only story we have, and we have no way to say whether Simon's is any more likely or unlikely than your suppositions. Evidently Christopher does have lawyers; he could always issue a statement with his side of the story. You cited one earlier, so he knows he has that option. Personally, I doubt Simon is telling the whole story, but it is the only story we have.Now to expand on my thrice given answer, for us to make a judgement on whether Simon's story is true or not we have to look at the evidence and use our own common sense. As for evidence we have almost nothing other than what Simon gives us. Christopher has apparently been silent on the subject. You give a link to a news story which quotes Christopher. In it Christopher is quoted as saying in regard to the movies: "My own position is that The Lord Of The Rings is peculiarly unsuitable to transformation into visual dramatic form." Certainly sounds like he is not in favor of any attempt to make LOTR into a film ("visual dramatic form"). That seems to lend some evidence to Simon's story. I have not engaged in the research to verify Simon's story that CHristopher set up a board for the Tolkien literary estate that excludes him, but since that should be fairly easily refutable if not true (and Christopher and his lawyers have not refuted it) I see no reason for Simon to make it up. You say that Christopher's statement has "buried within it was an oblique reference to his son". The "reference" to Simon is indeed "buried" and "oblique". So much so, that unless Christopher tells us directly what "sugestions" he is referring to we cannot be sure what he is talking about.

So to return to your question, my answer remains that while I do not think Simon is telling the whole story, his story is all we have. What little evidence we have does not refute his version of events. We are not dealing here with an American criminal trial where Christopher gets the benefit of a presumption on his side.

[rs691919]

As I thought, you cannot give a yes or no answer.

[Greenwood]

As I thought, you cannot give a yes or no answer.Ah, more rhetorical brilliance. :rolleyes:

Yes, I accept it as true pending evidence it is not, but I do not accept it as the whole story. You have presented no "evidence" beyond your suppositions that it is not true.

[rs691919]

Yes, I accept it as true pending evidence it is not, but I do not accept it as the whole story. You have presented no "evidence" beyond your suppositions that it is not true.

See, now honesty is more becoming. Actually, I have no supposition other than that it is most likely not the only side of the story. Whether its true or not, I have no idea (and what's more, I don't care). What I do have disdain for is the airing of family dispute in the media. That's distasteful, even if the story is true.

[Fundin Snowarm]

Let's see if we can get this thread back on track...the debates have been endless regarding the changes from the books to the movies. For arguement's sake, the legalities have been settled and PJ is making the film. Now the world of ME varies from Hobbit to LOTR, so in this theoretical 'movie' version of The Hobbit what do you think the necessary changes would have to be bridge the gap from the Hobbit (movie) to the LOTR (movies). No matter what stance you have on the existing movie a version of ME has been created, now lets say its your job to fit the Hobbit into that world...how would you do it?

[Greenwood]

See, now honesty is more becoming. Actually, I have no supposition other than that it is most likely not the only side of the story. Whether its true or not, I have no idea (and what's more, I don't care). What I do have disdain for is the airing of family dispute in the media. That's distasteful, even if the story is true.I guess four times is the charm since I had to say the same thing four times before you seemed to understand the answer.

No matter what stance you have on the existing movie a version of ME has been created, now lets say its your job to fit the Hobbit into that world...how would you do it?I suspect you don't really mean "fitting The Hobbit" into the cinematic version of ME that has already been created, as much as you mean changing the "feel" of it from a "children's" story to an "adult" story.

[Fundin Snowarm]

That is an obvious point, and right along the lines of what i was thinking. When i say fitting it in i mean, for example in the Hobbit the spiders can talk in the common language while in the LOTR Shelob does not...in a movie version would you have the spiders talk or would you keep it within the realm of the LOTR movies and just have them make spider noises. That's just one example the are many other small differences between the LOTR (books) and The Hobbit (book) that could effect continuity in movie versions...so the question is point out some of the differences and how would you address them.

[rs691919]

I guess four times is the charm since I had to say the same thing four times before you seemed to understand the answer.

Well, it did take you three times to give a yes or no answer; and your final answer appears to be "yes", it does make Simon's story more likely to be true in your mind (although earlier you said it made it neither more nor less likely). At least you're being honest now, whereas before you were hemming and hawing and making qualifications to your answers.

Incidentally, take a look at post #20 (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?t=14628&page=2&pp=15) (and take a look at the date of the post) for more brilliant rhetorical devices.

[rs691919]

That is an obvious point, and right along the lines of what i was thinking. When i say fitting it in i mean, for example in the Hobbit the spiders can talk in the common language while in the LOTR Shelob does not...in a movie version would you have the spiders talk or would you keep it within the realm of the LOTR movies and just have them make spider noises. That's just one example the are many other small differences between the LOTR (books) and The Hobbit (book) that could effect continuity in movie versions...so the question is point out some of the differences and how would you address them.

I apologize for hijacking your thread. Back to the topic. The main divergence between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings is in tone. The former is set in a world where you can have talking spiders; the latter less so. As for the spiders, I think it would be appropriate to reign them in, so to speak--that is, make them more like spiders.

But then what do you do with the three talking Trolls with very English names? That's a little stickier, for it's one of the memoable parts of the book; light-hearted, but still the point at which Bilbo has his first adventure. Overall, I would want The Hobbit to stay as is. Part of its greatness is its lightheartedness. So while the events are of course crucial to The Lord of the Rings, I wouldn't want to delve too deeply into that connection, because it would inevitably make the story darker than it is.

[Greenwood]

Well, it did take you three times to give a yes or no answer; and your final answer appears to be "yes", it does make Simon's story more likely to be true in your mind (although earlier you said it made it neither more nor less likely). At least you're being honest now, whereas before you were hemming and hawing and qualifications to your answers.

Incidentally, take a look at post #20 (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?t=14628&page=2&pp=15) (and take a look at the date of the post) for more brilliant rhetorical devices.

I gave my answer repeatedly. The fact that it was not an answer you liked or agreed with does not give you the right to question my honesty. You are skating awfully close to a personal attack, if you have not already crossed the line.

The post you cite was made on Jan. 20, 2004. So what? ;)

Oh, I get it! You mean I used the expression "So what?" on a date prior to the occasion that you used it. I must say, another brilliant rhetorical device!

I am humbled by the brilliance of the rhetoric in your arguments. :rolleyes: