I realize that this discussion isn't really "on topic" for this forum, so feel free to disregard/delete; but:

"The movies brought millions of people to Tolkien"

Did they, though? They certainly brought "millions of people" to Peter Jackson; but is that the same as bringing them to Tolkien?

To the extent that the Jackson films brought people to read Tolkien's book, that's great. But how many more people, having seen the movies, will think they "know" The Lord of the Rings, and so don't feel any need to read Tolkien's book? (Here's a hint: how many of you have read The Wizard of Oz, and how many have seen the movie?) The Jackson movies fundamentally misrepresent Tolkien in so many ways, that I cannot consider the two equivalent, or even, fundamentally, consonant.

onthetrail wrote:

While we all here have a healthy respect for Christopher and what he achieved, I feel that sometimes what he said about the movies were so personal to the point of not meaning much for the average viewer. The movies brought millions of people to Tolkien and this series will too.

Maybe of interest to some of you, when Bonhams put some of his letters up for auction I was able to read some examples sent to me by them when I was considering bidding on them.

One quote sticks outs.

From a letter dated 31 January, 1979:

>As regards the question of the film: I have not seen it and do not intend to, but I have seen a book with pictures taken from the film. I will not deafen you with vociferous condemnation and say no more than that I regard it with abhorrence, as a wholly unbelievable travesty of my father's work and a denial of the entire imaginative and aesthetic outlook. I do not wish to be associated with the film in any way that I can help; nor would United Artists want my assistance if they knew my feelings!

His attitude changes little and I imagine had someone made a really stonking adaptation that was truly faithful, he would have found reason to be underwhelmed. That's not a criticism per se, he was so close to the work and cared deeply about it. But this Christopher quote from Le Monde about the Peter Jackson movies is in my opinion overused to now encompass anything that has the words Tolkien and adaptation in it.

For me that quote describes perfectly how i feel about the movies. It is the lack of the things that i found most remarkable in the book as opposed to the endless actionsequences of Jacksons adaptation. CT just phrased it to the point.
I confess to being allergic to Jacksons movies though and will refrain from further comments as this is not the place for it.

I do think that adaptations have a place in the discussions here. They affect the book publishing (and collecting) trends and markets significantly, as Aelfwine hints at. They will also generate new collectibles that some here will be interested in. They are also *extremely* uninteresting and a turn-off for many!

The moderators and I have been discussing this for a while now, and I am working on some site improvements that should launch soon. I think we can appease both sides, and this will also help with other divisive topics as well. You will be able to mute topics and forums that you have no interest in, so those posts do not show up on the home page or in "Recent Posts" if you are logged in. You can still go to the "all forum" and "all topic" pages to read them even when logged in, they just won't be pushed on you. Please bear with me as I get this all going.

Aelfwine wrote:

I realize that this discussion isn't really "on topic" for this forum, so feel free to disregard/delete; but:

"The movies brought millions of people to Tolkien"

Did they, though? They certainly brought "millions of people" to Peter Jackson; but is that the same as bringing them to Tolkien?

To the extent that the Jackson films brought people to read Tolkien's book, that's great. But how many more people, having seen the movies, will think they "know" The Lord of the Rings, and so don't feel any need to read Tolkien's book? (Here's a hint: how many of you have read The Wizard of Oz, and how many have seen the movie?) The Jackson movies fundamentally misrepresent Tolkien in so many ways, that I cannot consider the two equivalent, or even, fundamentally, consonant.

Carl, you raise some important points. And it is something I have discussed with other Tolkien readers previously about how many of the people actually go on to read the books. My "millions" is likely quite a hot number to be fair but I mean that lots of people go on to buy books (whether they do read them or not) and that is a great thing for HarperCollins and hopefully collectors like many of the group here.

On the subject of PJ's movies, I really enjoy them, but I do not remotely connect them to my enjoyment of Tolkien. They are action fantasy adventure movies, nothing more. I loved the music though. As I said recently in a comment on Twitter, "if I want pure Tolkien I will go to my bookshelves".

Urulókë wrote:

I think these are all fair points, thanks for sharing that other Christopher quote too!

I was doing a little timeline investigation today:

• 3 July 2017 - The lawsuit between Warner Brothers and the Estate was settled amicably
  
• 31 August 2017 - Christopher resigns as director of the Tolkien Estate board
  
• 3 November 2017 - News that the Estate and WB TV have been shopping rights for a TV show leak. This article says that Amazon and Netflix are still in the running, but HBO "passed awhile back" because the finances were "insane".
  
• 13 November 2017 - Amazon announces the deal for the show
  

From this information, I assume that the goal of jointly shopping TV show rights were a part of the settlement agreement in July - while it is possible that WB and the Estate didn't start discussing a potential deal until September (after Christopher stepped down), it seems incredibly unlikely the Estate (sans Christopher) would be able to hammer out a plan with WB, shop it to multiple major studios, and have one of them step away "awhile back", and then sign a deal all in a two month window.

I strongly feel Christopher knew of these plans and could have stopped them by remaining director, but chose to step down and let the next generation move forward. I don't know for certain, and I have no idea how he felt about it, but the timeline seems pretty concrete.

A while back I was chatting with a friend who works for film director and we spoke about deals and how long they take. I never thought about it in context to the timeline you raise but he said that deals take years to put together. And looking at your timeline it does seem very unlikely that the Estate and Amazon could put this together in months. This falls into the grey area of guesswork but following on a little from your points, I expect Christopher stepped aside once a deal was principally in place, leaving this next part of the Tolkien story to others more enthusiastic.

Aelfwine wrote:

I realize that this discussion isn't really "on topic" for this forum, so feel free to disregard/delete; but:

"The movies brought millions of people to Tolkien"

Did they, though? They certainly brought "millions of people" to Peter Jackson; but is that the same as bringing them to Tolkien?

To the extent that the Jackson films brought people to read Tolkien's book, that's great. But how many more people, having seen the movies, will think they "know" The Lord of the Rings, and so don't feel any need to read Tolkien's book? (Here's a hint: how many of you have read The Wizard of Oz, and how many have seen the movie?) The Jackson movies fundamentally misrepresent Tolkien in so many ways, that I cannot consider the two equivalent, or even, fundamentally, consonant.

Adaptations change the source material, in small ways and large. I am not a huge Jackson fan (I didn't managed to see all three through to the end the last time I tried, and that was years ago), but I know many people who love them and I think that's fine. I agree with you - they aren't Tolkien in so many fundamental ways, though. Completely anecdotally, I know a lot of fans who started with the movies and have moved on to the books (and still love the movies). And a lot of movie fans who never read the books. Slightly more concretely, Tolkien book sales did really, really well during the Jackson years. I have no idea how many of them were read, or understood/enjoyed though.

The Prime show will also change the source material - probably significantly. I think they are (a) working in an era that doesn't have a lot written about it, (b) not able to use a lot of (or any) First Age lore, and (c) telling the story they want to tell as long as the Estate doesn't drop a mallet on them. I am still looking forward to watching it, but expect it will follow a similar path as you have outlined above. Perhaps I will be pleasantly surprised!

northman wrote:

onthetrail wrote:

While we all here have a healthy respect for Christopher and what he achieved, I feel that sometimes what he said about the movies were so personal to the point of not meaning much for the average viewer. The movies brought millions of people to Tolkien and this series will too.

Maybe of interest to some of you, when Bonhams put some of his letters up for auction I was able to read some examples sent to me by them when I was considering bidding on them.

One quote sticks outs.

From a letter dated 31 January, 1979:

>As regards the question of the film: I have not seen it and do not intend to, but I have seen a book with pictures taken from the film. I will not deafen you with vociferous condemnation and say no more than that I regard it with abhorrence, as a wholly unbelievable travesty of my father's work and a denial of the entire imaginative and aesthetic outlook. I do not wish to be associated with the film in any way that I can help; nor would United Artists want my assistance if they knew my feelings!

His attitude changes little and I imagine had someone made a really stonking adaptation that was truly faithful, he would have found reason to be underwhelmed. That's not a criticism per se, he was so close to the work and cared deeply about it. But this Christopher quote from Le Monde about the Peter Jackson movies is in my opinion overused to now encompass anything that has the words Tolkien and adaptation in it.

For me that quote describes perfectly how i feel about the movies. It is the lack of the things that i found most remarkable in the book as opposed to the endless actionsequences of Jacksons adaptation. CT just phrased it to the point.
I confess to being allergic to Jacksons movies though and will refrain from further comments as this is not the place for it.

Christopher is not talking about the Peter Jackson films in the quote, but the Ralph Bakshi film https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings_(1978_film).

I think the book he is referring to is the one in the middle in the picture.

Very interesting quote as I don't think I was aware of his views on this movie.

Trotter wrote:

northman wrote:

onthetrail wrote:

While we all here have a healthy respect for Christopher and what he achieved, I feel that sometimes what he said about the movies were so personal to the point of not meaning much for the average viewer. The movies brought millions of people to Tolkien and this series will too.

Maybe of interest to some of you, when Bonhams put some of his letters up for auction I was able to read some examples sent to me by them when I was considering bidding on them.

One quote sticks outs.

From a letter dated 31 January, 1979:

>As regards the question of the film: I have not seen it and do not intend to, but I have seen a book with pictures taken from the film. I will not deafen you with vociferous condemnation and say no more than that I regard it with abhorrence, as a wholly unbelievable travesty of my father's work and a denial of the entire imaginative and aesthetic outlook. I do not wish to be associated with the film in any way that I can help; nor would United Artists want my assistance if they knew my feelings!

His attitude changes little and I imagine had someone made a really stonking adaptation that was truly faithful, he would have found reason to be underwhelmed. That's not a criticism per se, he was so close to the work and cared deeply about it. But this Christopher quote from Le Monde about the Peter Jackson movies is in my opinion overused to now encompass anything that has the words Tolkien and adaptation in it.

For me that quote describes perfectly how i feel about the movies. It is the lack of the things that i found most remarkable in the book as opposed to the endless actionsequences of Jacksons adaptation. CT just phrased it to the point.
I confess to being allergic to Jacksons movies though and will refrain from further comments as this is not the place for it.

Christopher is not talking about the Peter Jackson films in the quote, but the Ralph Bakshi film https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings_(1978_film).

I think the book he is referring to is the one in the middle in the picture.

Very interesting quote as I don't think I was aware of his views on this movie.

Just a bit clumsy quoting by me. I was referring to the quote from Le monde.

Looks like this may end up in court before the sale of the film rights as I can't see buyers being interested if Zaentz Co. does not 100% own the film rights.

Warner Bros. has asserted that it still rules Middle-earth when it comes to film rights to “The Lord of the Rings.”

The studio has publicly stated its control over film adaptations of J.R.R. Tolkien’s classic fantasy trilogy amid rumblings in the industry that a clutch of “Lord of the Rings” and “The Hobbit” rights are being shopped by longtime owner, the Saul Zaentz Co.

The Zaentz Co. and Warner Bros. are in the middle of a private mediation process to help settle their differences about whether the studio has met its obligations to hold on to the license, according to multiple sources close to the situation. Warner Bros.’ New Line Cinema took “LOTR” to new heights with the success of its Oscar-winning trilogy directed by Peter Jackson: “The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring” (2001), “The Two Towers” (2002) and “The Return of the King” (2003).

“New Line Cinema has maintained the theatrical film rights, both live-action and animated, for over two decades now,” a Warner Bros. spokeswoman told Variety. “We are currently in production on our anime film ‘The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim’ and look forward to bringing audiences back to Middle-earth.”

Representatives for Zaentz Co. have quietly held pitch meetings in recent weeks to sell the portfolio of Tolkien rights that producer Saul Zaentz acquired in the late 1960s and ‘70s. It’s no secret that Warner Bros. and Zaentz Co. have had acquisition discussions over the last decade or so but they’ve never gotten close to a deal.

The Zaentz Co. holdings encompass rights to exploit “LOTR” and “The Hobbit” properties in movies, video games, merchandising, live events and theme parks. It also includes limited matching rights should the Tolkien estate decide to make movies or other content based on two compilations of Tolkien writings that were published after his death in 1973: “The Silmarillion” and “The Unfinished Tales of Numenor and Middle-Earth.”

A representative for the Zaentz Co. declined to comment.

Warner Bros. has had a long-term license on “LOTR” and “The Hobbit” since the late 1990s. The studio is said to be adamant that it has continuously met requirements to hold on to its rights by maintaining active development on the property, exercising options in a timely manner and making periodic payments to Zaentz Co.

As if to buttress that point, Warner Bros. earlier this week released key details of its plans for an anime “Lord of the Rings” movie from New Line and Warner Bros. Animation that is now dated for release on April 12, 2024.

https://variety.com/2022/film/news/lor ... zaentz-rights-1235184414/

Talking about whether or not Jackson's films and the Amazon series are of value is a lot like talking about what the true religion is--everyone has their own view and neither will convince the other. From my own point of view as a collector of translations, the films sparked a lot of international interest and more than a few first translations sprang from the inspiration of the films. Languages such as Slovenian, Galician, Slovak, Thai, Macedonian, Basque, Indonesian, Latvian, Farsi, Faroese, Belarusian, etc. all had their first translations of LOTR in the direct aftermath of the films. That translation flurry has slowed, but is still continuing with new translations in Afrikaans, Frisian, Uzbek, Azerbaijani, Sinhala, etc. Other languages had new translations, such as German. When one considers the international market, "millions" influenced by the films to buy the books might not be too far off. And what film is ever 100% faithful to the books? Even the highly-acclaimed "Tragedy of MacBeth" that came out recently only has one witch! I think I can live with beardless dwarvish women and still enjoy "The Rings of Power".

Trotter thanks for posting.

I immediately wondered if the Warner announcement was related to the SZ news rather than anything else going on in the Tolkien world (Amazon).

I have been thinking about the price tag SZ have attached to this and I can't help feeling they are wildly over valuing these rights.

Anyone coming in with the view to producing a new film series would be fighting a losing financial battle due to the rights costs (if SZ manage to attract a buyer at $2b of course).