LOTR movie

[Nóm]

The first time I watched it I was aware of things that I disliked about it. But as I watched it again and again, I noticed these things less. I think I was just able to accept the fact that the movie isn't, and never can be the book. Realizing my expectations where unrealistic I now enjoy the movie more. Did anyone else experience this?

[Istar]

I went into the movie with that mindset. It was fairly good when compared to other movies. I really went to try and get some of my friends to like LOTR.

[Elias]

When I first watched the movie I felt too that it's not so good but when I watch again and again it every time gets better.

[9 Finger Frodo]

The movie does have the integral story of the book, which is the greatest story of good vs. evil ever told, thus making it an excellent movie.
Comparing this movie to the book is futile, of course it's not going to be as good, no where close, and of course it's not going to be like you imagined it, becasue it's your imagination when you read. Alot of people's problem with the movie is that they've been entrenched in the book for so long and so many years they refuse to open their mind to any other middle earth besides the one constructed in their head. And when anyone or thing tries to alter that, they get upset and defensive. Obviously some parts of the story are going to get flipped around or changed for the benefit of the box office, (ie arwen), but if anyone actually thought the movie would be vertebatam to the book, they should rethink their sanity. With what Peter Jackson had to work with, I think he did an amazing job at bringing "his" version of ME to life, in fact I don't really think it could have been done better. The scenery, characters and suspense were amazing, and one of the best 3 hours i spent in a theatre for awhile. Also, I know at least two of my friends have started to read the books after seeing the movie. THANKS PJ!!!!

[Lantarion]

Well said, Niner, and welcome to the forum! :)
I agree that the movie could not possibly satisfy all Tolkien-fans (who have read the books, mind you; not sporradic movie-freaks who had never heard of Gandalf or Bilbo before the movie), because it's in our heads what the places and people look like. The first time I saw it (I've only seen it twice) I noticed an endless string of inconsistencies with the book: why didn't Aragorn carry Narsil around like in the book? Where was Bill Ferny? And why was Galadriel so grim? ..and countless other examples. But in the end I ended up focusing on the actual movie itself, and the brilliant interpretation of the actors, and I looked past the inconsistencies which led to a thoroughly beautiful movie experience.

[Rangerdave]

The movie has two very good points to it.
1. It gives true Tolkien fans something to feel superior about (and to gripe about, thats important)
2. It exposes the un-initiated to Middle Earth and may inspire them to actually read the books.

In this sense, I feel the movie has accomplished something wonderful.

RD

ps. Pontifex, I love your signature.

[ReadWryt]

In the case of this film, I've got not just the screenplay to go on but Tolkien's books. They paint a very vivid picture of the characters and the environment they live in, which makes my job as a director much easier. I can shut my eyes and imagine the movie playing in my head, just as millions of readers around the world have shut their eyes and imagined all the events from the books playing like a movie. So, when you come to filming scenes, you feel you already know the characters, which gives you an incredible head start. E! Online 2/1/01



It's been very very difficult. We've been writing it for two or three years and we still are writing it. It's such a complicated work and it's actually interesting because over the course of the time we've been writing, we've been revising. It's just the way we like to work, to consistently try and improve it right the way through the shoot. And we find ourselves going back closer and closer to the books.

Way back at the beginning we thought there is quite a bit of this we are going to have to alter or change, do things to turn the book into a film but the more we got into it and the more we really started to know the books in great detail, it would be fair to say we've gone further and further back to the books again.

So a lot of our so called clever ideas at the beginning we've long since abandoned and Tolkien hopefully has a fairly clear voice in the film. New Zealand Herald:12/11/00


"Filming three films at once has never been done before, in addition to which the project features thrilling special effects, so it was essential to plan everything down to the last detail. We owe Prof Tolkien and his fans our best efforts to make these films with the integrity they deserve." UK Telegraph:10/13/99

...Just some of my favorite quotes from Jackson about making this movie be a close representation of what Tolkien created...

[Legolas_lover12]

i thought that was funny. merry was like, "stick it in the ground" then pippin says, "it is in the ground." then the firework goes up and takes the tent with it and you see merry and pippin's faces. that was funny.:D :D
i saw the movie before i read the books. actually i only saw the movie because it was in a comic strip - foxtrot. it had the little boy dressed up as gandalf and his friend (who was a harry potter fan and was also wearing harry potter glasses) though he was dumbledore and he got all mad..........it was funnier than it sound,. but anyway, back to the point...........i'm very glad i did see it. best movie i saw all last year.....and this year too. (well star wars was good too, but anyway, back to the point again:D) and after i saw the movie i immedietly went out and bought (and read) LotR, TTT, RotK, and the hobbit. and i really like them. and, although i would like the movie to be more like the book, it would probably confuse ppl. i mean, my mom was pretty confused as it was. i had to explain a lot of things to her. and my friend was totally lost within the first 20 minutes. but she doesn't really understand all that stuff anyway. the only thing that kept her in the theater was that i had showed her a picture of legolas before we went. :D and if it were exactly like the books, each movie would be about 24 hours long. u's have to see the moive in about 6 different parts. it'd be like LotR part 1 : 6:00, LotR part 2 : 10:15, LotR part 3................that would get pretty old. but the movie theaters would make a lot of money.:D

[ReadWryt]

If people were confused by the movie it's because it was made from a confusing screenplay...not because the subject matter, ie. the characters and events, were in any way confusing...just because they were presented in a confusing manner...

[Talimon]

Actually the subject matter is very confusing. I agree the movie didn't do the best of jobs explaining everything, but in a way I'm thankful. The movie has enough plot-development scenes as it is. I'm happy the extended DVD will be purely charachter-development. The movie lacks some of that, and it's good to know that more of it was filmed and will be out there.

I think it's very difficult to engross the average movie-goer into a fantasy world. I mean, it's enough that we have elves, dwarfs, and orcs to deal with, but then we also have some very abstract ideas. You need to be very open-minded to enjoy fantasy, and most people these days aren't even close to being that. Part of the reason so much time was spent in Isengard was to make sure people understood who the enemy was. That's important for the audience to understand. Likewise, the ring was focused on in many scenes. It's important the audience understand that as well. In terms of capturing the elements that mattered I think the movie did a superb job. And luckily it didn't require that audience to follow on some of the more subtle details (Boromir and Gondor, for example).

[Xanaphia]

I just wanted to comment about what Istar said about friends in the very beging of this thread. I have converted severalll of my friends to obsessed LOTR fans, but there are still a lot of people who are allways making fun of us for likeing it so much. Of course we just tell them off and then ignore them, but these people haven't even SEEN or READ LOTR and they all ready say that it is stupid!!!! They drive me crazy!!!! Any advice???
Thanx!!!:D I guess the way I see it is that it's their loss!!!!!

[ReadWryt]

There are no characters who are so complex they cannot be portrayed without confusion, nor events which warrant an great deal of explaination...it seems to me that 90% or more of what makes a good movie are Characters and Events, so what in the world was such a complex subject that it needed to be spoon fed to an audience, and how do ANY of the changes in the movie help to do this? Nobody needed to know the means by which Saruman made Uruk Hai, nor does anybody need to know the manner in which the flood at the Ford is actually created outside of the fact that Elrond commanded it...If anything the movie leaves out important facts, like what Saruman and Gandalf are and why the relationship between Aragorn and Arwen is so important.

Had the film been made in a manner that didn't attempt to burden the audience with learning a buch of "complex concepts" AND understand the ACTIONS and CHARACTERS by presuming that they needed to know these things to understand the STORY, then perhaps they would have taken it as fact that these things just were! Take for instance the case of The Matrix...nobdy ever questioned the technology used, they just accepted it because it worked. Same with the technology in Star Wars, if Lucas wasted time trying to explain compex concepts like how Light Sabers worked then the story, and the telling of it, would suffer for it.

I say the most benefit they could have delivered would be to just show the story and let the audience fill in the gaps in their knowlege by READING, this would have served all much better...

[Retrovertigo]

I didn't really liked it as a book adaption or a movie, but I plan to watch it again when the directors cut comes out, and I've been watching a lot of Oliver Stone movies lately so maybe I will have softened by then and end up liking it.

[Talimon]

Originally posted by ReadWryt

I say the most benefit they could have delivered would be to just show the story and let the audience fill in the gaps in their knowlege by READING, this would have served all much better...

You can't do that. You can't assume the audience will read the book. That's just not a reality. If I go to watch the movie and it doesn't make sense without having read the book I'm not going to enjoy it or read the book. The only way I'm going to read the book is if the movie was good.

PJ made a movie that new-comers can love, and as such got more new-comers to read the book. I don't see what you mean by leaving holes in the story, for a new-comer the movie makes perfect sense. Showing how orcs are made wasn't a plot point. It was meant to have some sort of emotional impact. You have to realize that not every scene serves the same purposes. Some scenes serve the plot, others serve charachter development, others serve the mood of the story, and others help tie everything together. Details don't make a movie better. That's something you seem to be arguing. You're telling me that if the movie would have been more true to the book (and thus more detailed) it would have been better. That's simply not true. At most it would have made a few fans happier that everyone knows what really happened, and in the process would have probably bored over half the audience and made this movie a flop. And the movie probably wouldn't be nearly as entertaining.

[Legolas_lover12]

I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING TALIMON JUST SAID!!:)

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Talimon
At most it would have made a few fans happier that everyone knows what really happened, and in the process would have probably bored over half the audience and made this movie a flop. And the movie probably wouldn't be nearly as entertaining.

What are you talking about? Most of the stuff in the movie that WAS entertaining was the stuff that stayed true to Tolkien.....It sounds like you're saying Tolkien=boring, Jackson's changes=excitement.....Give Tolkien some credit....His words and scenes alone coming to life makes the movie great....Actually, PJ lacked the excitement of Tolkien by dumbing down things and developing the characters so poorly....

[Talimon]

That's not what I'm saying, or at least that's not what I mean. Tolkien's words are the soul of the movie. The best quotes from the movie (the most memorable ones) are straight out of Tolkien. Everything else is just glue to hold it together (with the crude exceptions of "If you want him come and claim him!" and "Let's hunt some orc!" :)). What I really mean is this: Tolkien has passages of dialogue in the book that went on for a paragraph or more. These are nearly always facinating and masterfully written, but they are from another time. It's more Shakespeare, really. I mean, real people don't talk like that, not in our world. Writting a script for a movie is a completely different matter. In the case of Jackson, he wrote the script with the moto of "less is more". That is, lines are supposed to be memorable and say something. PJ really took the minimal approach. This highly defers from Tolkien, I agree. Tolkien often wrote more then was needed, but that gave the writing soul and charachter. I think that's why the movie and the book seem so different. Charachters talk differently, and that makes them come off as being different. That really isn't the case, however. Jackson uses words as little as possible, while Tolkien loved words and used them in bulk. So you have to approach the two works differently.

[Legolas_lover12]

again, i agree with talimon. great minds think alike..............:D :D ;) ;)

[ReadWryt]

If I go to watch the movie and it doesn't make sense without having read the book I'm not going to enjoy it or read the book.

Once more the implication is that Brevity=Confusion. There would be no need to make the movie confusing simply because you are not attempting to explain details that are not necessary to the story. The whole scene with Boromir and Narsil is a perfect example. How would the movie have been confusing if that had never happened?

You're telling me that if the movie would have been more true to the book (and thus more detailed) it would have been better.

Please, do tell me where in the following quote from what I actually DID say I state anything close to the words you attempt to put in my mouth?

"There are no characters who are so complex they cannot be portrayed without confusion, nor events which warrant an great deal of explaination...it seems to me that 90% or more of what makes a good movie are Characters and Events, so what in the world was such a complex subject that it needed to be spoon fed to an audience, and how do ANY of the changes in the movie help to do this? Nobody needed to know the means by which Saruman made Uruk Hai, nor does anybody need to know the manner in which the flood at the Ford is actually created outside of the fact that Elrond commanded it...If anything the movie leaves out important facts, like what Saruman and Gandalf are and why the relationship between Aragorn and Arwen is so important.

Had the film been made in a manner that didn't attempt to burden the audience with learning a buch of "complex concepts" AND understand the ACTIONS and CHARACTERS by presuming that they needed to know these things to understand the STORY, then perhaps they would have taken it as fact that these things just were! Take for instance the case of The Matrix...nobdy ever questioned the technology used, they just accepted it because it worked. Same with the technology in Star Wars, if Lucas wasted time trying to explain compex concepts like how Light Sabers worked then the story, and the telling of it, would suffer for it."

It's not a matter of MORE detail, as obviously much of the "detail" Jackson invented is not needed...it's a matter of whcih details and fewer of them, rather then assuming that the audience is so stupid that their collective heads would explode upon attempting to ponder the physical manner Uruk Hai are created, or how the Flood was made...or that Narsil is still sharp after all these years and Boromir is a Klutz...

PJ really took the minimal approach.

In words only...he maximized everywhere else he could his influence over HOW the story unfolds and WHO the characters are. There is a vast difference between reducing dialog and inventing new scenes.

[Thorin]

Yes....It wasn't a matter of reducing or even paraphrasing Tolkien's language (and in many cases, he used the exact "archaeic" language Tolkien used) but CHANGING and ADDING dialogue, sometimes ludicrous dialogue as has been pointed out:

"nobody tosses a dwarf"
"if you want him, come and claim him"
"i'll die before I see the ring on an elves finger"
"let him go or i'll have you, Long Shanks"
"let's go hunt some orc"

How do you justify taking out Tolkien's well explained dialogue by Aragorn explaining what they need to do at Amon Hen and replace it with "Let's go hunt some orc"???

To me that is not making anything better, or easier to understand....Downsizing and botching it is one thing, creating something new and still botching it is even worse.

[Legolas_lover12]

"nobody tosses a dwarf." - this was just something put on to be funny. i'll admit, they didn't need it. but i did laugh. (i also laughed when legolas caught gimli by the beard.)
"if you want him, come and claim him" - totally unnessisary (sp?). the whole "arwen, warrior princess" thing was not needed and i didn't really like it. they could have put glorfindel in without making it confusing, but.....................they didn't.
"i'll die before i see the ring on an elves finger" btw, the acctual quote was, "i'll die before i see the ring in the hands of an elf." just so you know. - this kind of said that elves and dwarves didn't like each other. that is a kind of important thing to know. it would have been more important if they would have done legolas/gimli stuff in the movie. another thing i didn't reall y like. (but i guess they "didn't have time")
let him go or i'll have you, long shanks." - didn't need it. pretty much just showed that sam was stupid..............but..............oh well.
"let's go hunt some orc." explained to the viewers (with a lower IQ than us) what they were going to do in simpler terms. i though it sounded cool. but........................they probably just did it to make thing simpler. most people todday aren't very smart you know.

[Talimon]

"nobody tosses a dwarf"
"if you want him, come and claim him"
"i'll die before I see the ring on an elves finger"
"let him go or i'll have you, Long Shanks"
"let's go hunt some orc"

The only two that I don't like there are the 2nd and the last. All the rest are fine and serve one purpose or another.

It's not a matter of MORE detail, as obviously much of the "detail" Jackson invented is not needed...it's a matter of whcih details and fewer of them, rather then assuming that the audience is so stupid that their collective heads would explode upon attempting to ponder the physical manner Uruk Hai are created, or how the Flood was made...or that Narsil is still sharp after all these years and Boromir is a Klutz...

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you telling me that the reason the movie showed the Uruk-Hai being created was to explain the plot? Or even worse, the reason Boromir get's cut by Narsil is to explain that it's still sharp? I hope you are being sarcastic here, honestly. NOT EVERY SCENE IS THERE TO DEVELOP THE PLOT. That's all I have to say. Some scenes have emotional impact, others focus on charachter development. You can't simply assume that every change was made to "simplify" or "clarify" the plot. Those type of changes were made, sure, but they aren' the only changes. Simplifying the plot was: Cutting Bombadil and Frodo moving to Crickhollow, cutting the time between Bilbo's party and Frodo's departure, leaving out Radgahst and Gandalf going to Rohan, Glorfindel, the council of Elrond... Those are plot changes. But thier not the only type of change. Other changes (or addditions, if you will) are there to set up a certain mood, to create tension, etc. etc. Not everything serves the same role. With a few exceptions nearly every change can be explained and justified. And those that can't are simply PJ using his creative license, which you have to grant him at one point or another. If the Tolkien estate was so concerned with an accurate adaptation they'd reclaim the rights (something they could easily do) and sign a contract with a director specifying creative license. They haven't done that, and they aren't complaining. All the better.

[ReadWryt]

I haven't actually SEEN the document signed by Tolkien and Saul Zaentz, so I will wisely refrain from making comment on the ability of the Estate to retract the movie rights from New Line, but from my observations of other properties in the past, and the nighmare stories of author's attempting to stop film makers from making sweeping changes in their works after purchasing the Movie Rights...the most recent I know of being Robert H. Heinlein's "Starship Troopers", the only recourse being available to the widow of the Author being to have his name removed from the title and promotional materials. Sound familiar?

[Talimon]

I really wish I had kept this article that I had found a while back... It detailed the Tolkien estates point of view on the movies, and how the movie rights came to Saul. It was a great article, and helped clarify a lot regarding the whole situation.

Personally I trust the fact that Tolkien personally gave the movie rights to Saul as being sign enough that it's in good hands. On the other hand Saul gave the rights to Bakshi, so maybe not :). But what I heard is that the Tolkien estate is eagerly following the movies, and I also read two articles about how both Tolkien's grandson and a close friend highly enjoyed the movies.

Keep in mind that these movies aren't the interpretation, or the tale. They are someones shot at making a trilogy of exceptional fantasy movies, while at the same time retaining Tolkien's tale and spirit. If anyone has been offended by PJ they have only themselves to blame for having unrealistic expectations. I find that the "harder" the fan the more they think Tolkien's tale has been butchered. Well, rest assured that you are the only one thinking this, and the general public if anything has caught on to Tolkiens tale. I beg you to prove your devotion to Tolkiens tale by not putting so much weight on these adaptations. Don't "trust PJ". If that's a better way for you to look at it, then go ahead.

Here's a quote by PJ that sums it up best:

"You shouldn't think of these movies as being The Lord of the Rings. The Lord of the Rings is, and always will be, a wonderful book - one of the greatest ever written. Any films will only ever be an interpretation of the book. In this case my interpretation."

If that doesn't satisfy you I don't know what will.

[ReadWryt]

...it seems to me that were the Estate as happy with the movie as you say they never would have demanded that J.R.R. Tolkien's name be removed from the title of the films...as for Saul Zaentz, that hack has been making money off the hard work and sweat of other people since way back when he was ripping off Lenny Bruce and Credence Clearwater Revival. Hell, the clown even sued John Foggerty for sounding too much like John Foggerty back in the early 80s...He's also the person in charge of the business that licenses the rights to make things bearing the "The Lord of the Rings" title, which includes "The Lord of the Rings Oracle" (A set of Tarot Cards, a Gazing Ball and other occult tools that the staunch Catholic Author who trusted this schiester with the rights would have balked at ever being associated with his name, I assure you). Saul Zaentz is only interested in the money, and when confronted with a magician in upstate New York who performed for the benefit of raising money for Animal Shelters going by the name of "Gandalf the Wizard Clown", Zaentz sued the guy with everything he had...forcing the poor man into financial difficulties that caused him to settle...even though he had adequately shown the courts that the name Gandalf was a 14th century Norse name.

I think that what happened was that the Estate realized that trying to make trouble for the film maker(s) was an uphill battle so long as they no longer held the Motion Picture rights and so did the only thing they could do...Make New Line take the author's name off the posters and film's title and bite the bullet...

[Talimon]

I never knew that Tolkien's name was going to be included in the title.

Just because Tolkien's name was removed doesn't say they weren't excited about the movie. No one doubted these movies would defer from the books, and so it would only make sense that they not be associated with the author who wrote the books. I can assure you that if nothing more they are happy with the increasing book sales and popularity that LotR has gotten in general.

As a side note, doesn't the Tolkien estate have something to say about the book rights held by Houghton Mifflin? Because if they do then they sure didn't voice any concerns with pictures from the movie being put on the covers of the books.

I wouldn't be so sure about the Tolkien estate's point of view on the movies. You'd think, were the movies so bad, the Tolkien estate would make some sort of statement regarding it. I don't know what the validity behind your claims on Saul is, but I've heard him lecture on Tolkien and the movies and he sounded extremley honest and kind to me. He mentioned how he had refused offers from Disney and Warner Brothers to make animated versions of the movies, and to me that really stood out as not being money hungry. I'm willing to bet some of those things you claim were simply made up by some fan wanting to make Saul out to be money hungry and cruel.

[ReadWryt]

Disney had allready proven once that they were not competent to produce an animated version while the professor was still breathing, his commentary about the "Zimmerman Treatment" is quite well documented in the letter he wrote to Forrest J. Ackerman on the subject. (letter #210 in The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien), and as for the Warner Brothers bid...well, not being well known for Feature Animation, and not knowing anything about the chronology of the thing I know for a fact that Saul Zaentz was left feeling that "Animation, in my mind, couldn't make the best movie." as he states in an interview in the Feb 2002 Cinefantastique magazine, but then this doesn't explain why he let Rankin&Bass do "Return of the King" after the Bakshi movie bellyflopped at the box office...

As for the John Fogerty thing, I submit this link from the Supreme Court Records at Cornell University...

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1750.ZO.html

and these quotes from Rolling Stone Magazine...

"Until this year, Fogerty had refused to perform his Creedence hits because Fantasy Records owner Saul Zaentz owned the rights to them. He has also feuded with his former bandmates, especially since they sold their votes in CCR licensing decisions to Zaentz in the late '80s."

"Since CCR disbanded in 1972, Fogerty and Fantasy Records owner Saul Zaentz have kept the band's legacy alive in court. Originally, Fogerty sued Zaentz to get out of his recording contract with Fantasy and eventually surrendered the rights to his songs in order to win his freedom. In one of the more bizarre wrinkles, Zaentz filed -- and eventually lost -- a suit contending that Fogerty's "Old Man Down the Road" plagiarized CCR's "Run Through the Jungle"."

http://rollingstone.com/news/newsarticle.asp?nid=3643&cf=1648

...and this from Hall Classic Music's web site...

"Fogerty and the others fought endless legal battles with Fantasy Records, which had a cutthroat contract with the band and helped them to invest their earnings in a Bahamian banking scheme that went belly-up. Fantastically, Fantasy sued Fogerty for copyright infringement in the mid-'80s because a song on his solo album allegedly plagiarized one of the band - s songs, which Fantasy owned. (Fantasy lost.)"

http://hallclassicalmusic.com/music/78.shtml

As for the matter of "Gandalf the Wizard Clown", take a look at these links, a couple of which erroneously presume that the Tolkien Estate is a body interchangable with "Tolkien Enterprises", A division of the Saul Zaentz Company which licenses the names from "Lord of the Rings" for use in merchandise.

http://www.salon.com/people/wire/2000/07/14/gandalf/print.html
http://users.erols.com/brant/Fallfacts.html
http://www.tolkien-movies.com/words/2000/02-09-00b.htm

For information about the "Lord of the Ring Oracle", I offer these links to you...

http://www.celtic-connection.com/lit/ring-02-99.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/080692053X/qid=1023430890/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/102-6530535-5097700


I hope this settles the case of the actual source of these facts and puts to rest the idea that they were "rumors" started by "fans"...

[dapence]

Never try to out research ol' RW! :)

[Talimon]

Wow. Nice research :).

The CCR deal was/is completely petty on Saul's part, or so it seems. I'd need to hear his argument on the issue, but it deffinitely sounds ugly.

As for the Gandalf case, I found it kind of hillarious that someone would actually take this to court. It sounds to me, however, that there is more to it then the sum of it's parts. I'm willing to bet that there is something between Kaplan and Zaentz that exceeds the simple argument over Gandalf's name. If that's an infringement on the Tolkien estates rights then I have seen dozens far worse in my life. I find it hard to believe that the issue is skin deep. But if it is then that too would be petty on Saul's part.

I don't know about the other issues, but I do know that Saul sounds pretty commited to protecting Tolkiens "integrity", if you will. I'm perfectly open to hearing another opinion and maybe even changing my own, since I'm not very educated on the matter. But from what I've heard from and of Saul I don't get the impression he is out there to make money by banking on Tolkien's name. At most he is trying to stop others from making money. But that's not necessarily a bad thing.

As for the Ranking & Bass version, the most I can assume is that Saul felt leaving the tale on the edge as it was with Bakshi's version wouldn't do, and so he had the creators of the Hobbit give it a shot. From what I've heard the animated version of the Hobbit was accepted much more whole-heartedly then Bakshi's FotR/TTT, so that would explain him choosing them. That's not to say thier version of RotK is worth a penny, because it isn't. I like the animation (I really liked it in the Hobbit), but the battle scenes didn't do. That's the BIG advantage of having live film. You can show scenes on an epic scope.

[ReadWryt]

If that's an infringement on the Tolkien estates rights then I have seen dozens far worse in my life. I find it hard to believe that the issue is skin deep.

...see, that's just it. It's not an infringement on the Tolkien Estate's rights...it's an infringement on Regestered Trade Mark rights that belong to Saul... http://www.tolkien-ent.com/new/names.html <---This is a list of all the Names of Characters that Saul claims to own the trademark on.

"Tolkien Enterprises is a division of the Saul Zaentz Company, which in 1976 acquired certain exclusive rights to the fanciful names and characters associated with Middle-Earth, and in 1978 produced a feature-length animated film of The Lord of the Rings, directed by Ralph Bakshi.

Tolkien Enterprises licenses the names and likenesses of the fanciful characters, places, things and events for use as trademarks and service marks in connection with various lines of merchandise. The Saul Zaentz Company also owns exclusive rights to certain copyrightable elements of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings including, among others, film and legitimate stage rights. A spectacular live action, special effects-packed trilogy of films based on The Lord of the Rings is currently in development by New Zealand's Peter Jackson, to be produced and released by New Line Cinema."

You will note that in the above quote, taken from Saul's web site http://www.tolkien-ent.com there is absolutely no mention of him being an advocate, agent or licensor for the Tolkien Estate, nor that the estate controls the licensing in any way of the things he claims the rights to...

In fact it goes on to state, "Since 1978, Tolkien Enterprises has carried out a worldwide licensing program, through which we have authorized dramatizations, musicals, puppet performances, services and merchandise using the Tolkien trademarks. Our licensees have produced a large range of merchandise, including board games, puzzles, computer games, chess sets, playing cards, terot decks, T-shirts, costumes, masks, buttons, belt buckles, dolls, puppets, metal miniature figures, coloring books, music, linens, pewter figurines, porcelain figurines, collector plates, clocks, daggers & swords, action figures, bulletin boards, mirrors, posters, calendars, note-cards, stationery, collectible card games, role-playing games, decals and bumper stickers.", the italics were added by myself and indicate an item that I feel is a small demonstration of how little respect Zaentz has for the Professor and his intentions for the marketing of what inevitably is associated with his name.

Most recently Zaentz scared off the kid who used to run www.lordoftherings.com, a fan site which promoted the movie release for the whole time it was in production and was similar to www.theonering.net, but because the kid who ran it was scared of Saul and his band of mighty lawyers he no longer owns the domain. Upon performing a "WhoIs" on the domain one realizes that it is now owned by Saul Zaentz, who leases it to Universal for the promotion of their X-Box "The Lord of the Rings" game, which is chock full of names, places and objects that Zaentz claims to own the Regestered Trademark on, so it would behoove him to promote the sales of items that he makes money off of.


Registrant:
The Saul Zaentz Company dba Tolkien (WUEVDGPPVD)
2600 Tenth Street
Berkeley, CA 94710
US

Domain Name: LORDOFTHERINGS.COM

Administrative Contact:
Battle, Laurie (LB5527) lbattle@FANTASYJAZZ.COM
Tolkien Enterprises
2600 Tenth Street
Berkeley, CA 94710
(510) 549-1528 (FAX) (510) 486-2015
Technical Contact:
Berg, Jason (ESMGYFTZYI) jberg@FANTASYJAZZ.COM
2600 Tenth Street
Berkeley, CA 94710
US
510-486-2176

Record expires on 10-May-2004.
Record created on 19-Mar-2002.
Database last updated on 9-Jun-2002 05:15:41 EDT.

In fact if you do a www.dogpile.com search on lordoftherings.com, many of the interesting and well crafted studies the young fellow who owned it had on the site are still listed in the search engines, which shows you that it's not about helping the Fans, or the Estate...it's about making a buck and squeezing the fanbase for gain.

[Talimon]

That still doesn't say much, though. It's not as if he is doing public service or something. He's doing business. If someone is going to be making a game, and Saul, legally owning the rights, wants that domain name, it's in his best interests to try and secure that site. It's not extremely nice, but I wouldn't go out of my way to call him greedy because of that.

Upon performing a "WhoIs" on the domain one realizes that it is now owned by Saul Zaentz, who leases it to Universal for the promotion of their X-Box "The Lord of the Rings" game, which is chock full of names, places and objects that Zaentz claims to own the Regestered Trademark on, so it would behoove him to promote the sales of items that he makes money off of.

It most certainly would. That's not such a big discovery, if I recall the way the world works. It would "behoove" New Line to promote the LotR movies, as it would the Tolkien Estate to promote Tolkiens writings. I'm still wondering about Houghton Mifflin putting pictures from the movies on the covers of the books. I'm sure the Tolkien Estate had something to say (or not say, it would seem :)) about that. Everyone is out to make money, even the most respectable Tolkien Estate itself.

What really needs to be questioned is Saul's point of view on the tale itself. Would he hand it off to just anyone? Would he let it be completely butchered? Maybe, maybe not. I don't consider Tarrot Cards to have a very dramatic effect on Tolkien or his writing. Nor do I consider bumper stickers. But a movie, that's different. A movie is communicated on a far larger spectrum. Would Saul have handed the movie rights to just anyone? Could he stand the heat from the Tolkien Estate if the movie rights had fallen into the hands of a less competent film-maker?

Out of curiousity, did Saul have anything to do with LotR being marketed through Burger King? If so, that would seal it off. But I think that was actually done by New Line.

[ReadWryt]

Saul would have to have given them the right to create the cheesy plastic toys in the likeness of the characters from the movie and put the names that he claims to own the regestered trade mark to on them, so yes...if he didn't consider the quote...

"I'm sorry about the Pied Piper. I loathe it. God help the children! I would as soon give them crude and vulgar plastic toys. Which of course they will play with, to the ruin of their taste." The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien #234

...and as for the Terot cards, Leviticus 19:26 states "Do not practice Divination or Sorcery"...and Paul speaks in the New Testiment that God views Divination to be "Akin to the Sin of Pride" for which Satan was cast from heaven. Now anyone who knows me from this forum knows that I myself am a self proclaimed agnostic and do not practice Christianity, but I have a great deal of respect for the practitioners of any faith and would be most likely to have witheld the name of anything associated with Tolkien's name that would have been in conflict with his deeply held beliefs. By not doing so Zaentz demonstrates that he lacks this respect for Tolkien and his beliefs, and so was probably not the best choice to administer the rights to things related to his works. I'm not saying that Zaentz is a bad man for his handling of these things related to Tolkien, I'm just saying that it should be recognized what the man is actually doing and not attribute to him any altruistic notions of looking out for the best interest of the good name of Tolkien or his estate...

[Talimon]

That I agree with.