"If the Estate had wanted Tolkien’s work on the second age to be reflected on screen then they would have sold a package that allowed it."

What the Estate sold was the television rights to the same material whose film rights had already been sold long ago. I have seen no indication that the Estate had any special concern to bring about the use or dramatization of the Second Age portion of this material specifically. It was Amazon, not the Tolkien Estate, that chose to focus on (just) the Second Age portion of that material for (at least initial) development.

Aelfwine wrote:

"If the Estate had wanted Tolkien’s work on the second age to be reflected on screen then they would have sold a package that allowed it."

What the Estate sold was the television rights to the same material whose film rights had already been sold long ago. I have seen no indication that the Estate had any special concern to bring about the use or dramatization of the Second Age portion of this material specifically. It was Amazon, not the Tolkien Estate, that chose to focus on (just) the Second Age portion of that material for (at least initial) development.

Aelfwine is correct from what I can tell from all of the information that has been made public. The Estate, working in cooperation with Warner Brothers (likely as part of the lawsuit settlement), was shopping around the license for TV series rights for materials coming from The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings - and nothing else. Amazon won the bidding warm not with the highest cash offer, evidently, but their pitch was more appealing than what HBO and Netflix pitched.

Yes that was evident in the last interview.
They certainly had the permission of using Numenor map but I'd say after the deal was concluded.

Urulókë wrote:

Amazon won the bidding war not with the highest cash offer, evidently, but their pitch was more appealing than what HBO and Netflix pitched.

I remember reading that although I couldn't find the reference, but this was where my point comes from. If the Estate knew the approach from Amazon they could have helped that along or gone with another offer, or none. I am not criticising the estate for the direction they went with, but they did and if they wanted this series largely as it is told then they are part of why it is as it is. And if they had the veto as has been said from the start then they had power to say no to what we are watching.

"Amazon won the bidding warm not with the highest cash offer, evidently, but their pitch was more appealing than what HBO and Netflix pitched."

That's what Amazon and/or media reports say; I'm unaware of any statement like this from the Tolkien Estate itself. (Well, I mean, clearly Amazon's offer was "more appealing" to the Estate, since Amazon won the rights — but just in what way(s) it was more appealing, I don't recall any statement from the Estate itself.)

There's an awful lot of attribution of motive, vision, terms, restrictions, etc. to the Estate that turns out on (rather quick) inspection not to arise from anything the Estate itself has said. And that's been the case for years now. It might all prove to be accurate, but in the meantime I submit it is important not to impute to the Estate positions that thus far are attributed to it only in/by external sources. To my knowledge, no one outside of the Estate has been appointed spokesman for the Estate, and certain notorious examples of presuming or at least appearing to presume to be such have not gone well.

P.S. To be clear, I have no inside or otherwise special knowledge about any of this (except for the small bits of contributions I make regarding Tolkien's invented languages, of course, though that too is utterly unprivileged in this context!)

Aelfwine wrote:

"Amazon won the bidding warm not with the highest cash offer, evidently, but their pitch was more appealing than what HBO and Netflix pitched."

That's what Amazon and/or media reports say; I'm unaware of any statement like this from the Tolkien Estate itself. (Well, I mean, clearly Amazon's offer was "more appealing" to the Estate, since Amazon won the rights — but just in what way(s) it was more appealing, I don't recall any statement from the Estate itself.)

There's an awful lot of attribution of motive, vision, terms, restrictions, etc. to the Estate that turns out on (rather quick) inspection not to arise from anything the Estate itself has said. And that's been the case for years now. It might all prove to be accurate, but in the meantime I submit it is important not to impute to the Estate positions that thus far are attributed to it only in/by external sources. To my knowledge, no one outside of the Estate has been appointed spokesman for the Estate, and certain notorious examples of presuming or at least appearing to presume to be such have not gone well.

Thank you Carl for those thoughtful points, but while your point is of course a sensible one, Amazon have said this, and therefore that is what we know of the insider detail. It is fair therefore if the Estate have not corrected a publicly made statement to assume it correct. The Estate have indeed made no public statements about this, so therefore when Amazon speak about their relationship in a public manner, we take that as having some authority.

Do we? The Estate are not in the habit of clarifying public tittle tattle. Secondhand reporting of the "facts" by (for example) The Hollywood Reporter, telling us in turn what Amazon have purportedly said carry, for me, very little weight. The Estate not denying this or clarfying detail does not confirm the truth of these stories. It's Amazon we're talking about here...

I consider official interviews and statements from one part of a partnership as a statement from both parts unless the other wishes to make their own. If the estate choose to let others speak for them then they will be misrepresented if what has been said is not accurate.

So others can choose to ignore what has been said or they can accept what has been said as a general 'truth'. But neither approach is more or less right or wrong.

Don't agree, but fair enough. Out of interest, where have Amazon made official statements? Press reports (& interviews with people who aren't privy to the business details) don't strike me as necessarily official.

People who represent a company and make statements on behalf of that company are making official statements, whether they are accurate is another matter of course. The interviews from showrunners, head of programming etc, they are being conducted on behalf of the company and they are therefore officially endorsed statements. Unless of course there is a disclaimer to those interviews, which I've not seen.

"the views shared are the personal opinions of those interviewed" for instance, is not the case with these statements. It makes them official statements, no matter how much one might think they are not, they are very much official. Whether one believes them or not, that's the part we can all decide on.