I think copyrights work differently than public domain literature.
The Silmarillion will only enter public domain if the copyright period isn't extended again. Basically, unless the big media companies somehow lose an enormous amount of political clout in the next 15 years, I'd expect that post Great-Depression literature/art/film/music will never enter the public domain; copyright periods will just keep getting longer and longer. (Right now they're what, 95 years after creator's death?)
0
Options
HedgethornAssociate Professor of Historical Hobby HorsesIn the Lions' DenRegistered Userregular
As an aside, I really have trouble thinking that if Warners backs up the money truck to the Tolkien estate they're going to keep pitching this fit.
Don't kid yourself. Christopher Tolkien sees protecting and cataloguing his father's work as his personal holy mission.
Though he'll be dead eventually. Wonder who'll take over then.
At least one of the grandchildren (Micheal?) was publicly supportive of the Peter Jackson movies; it lead to Christopher publicly disowning him a few years back. So odds are good that Christopher won't pass on literary executor duties to him.
Christopher Tolkien, one of the late author's three surviving children, has severed contact with his eldest son because of a long-standing dispute sparked by the making of the £210 million ($719 million) film trilogy.
The 77-year-old opposes the project.
Now the eldest of his three children, Simon, has told how he was cut adrift from family affairs and banned from the board set up to protect his grandfather's estate after daring to suggest the movies were a good idea.
The 42-year-old criminal barrister, from west London, said: "As long ago as early 1999, it was my view that we should take a much more positive line on the film and that was overruled by my father. Following that, I was excluded from the board of the Tolkien company.
"My father is the one who exercises control over the affairs of the family in relation to my grandfather's estate. His only mode of communication with me is by letter."
We know how much of the story of Bilbo Baggins, the Wizard Gandalf, the Dwarves of Erebor, the rise of the Necromancer, and the Battle of Dol Guldur will remain untold if we do not take this chance. The richness of the story of The Hobbit, as well as some of the related material in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings, allows us to tell the full story of the adventures of Bilbo Baggins and the part he played in the sometimes dangerous, but at all times exciting, history of Middle-earth.
On the one hand, the utter depth and richness of the Lord of the Rings books gave him plenty to work with, and even with the extended editions I would have loved to see even more.
On the other, while I liked King Kong overall I thought it was padded out too much and could have stood to have lost 20-30 minutes, and The Hobbit, even with the appendices of LOTR, is a lot smaller.
I'm choosing to be excited.
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Collider: As-yet-untitled third film will have a Summer 2014 release date.
I can see why Warners would go for this. The LOTR license is practically a printing press, and Warners has exhausted all their other tentpole franchises. But is there enough for three films? I really struggle to think so, and I'm really re-thinking a need for EE editions of The Hobbit films now.
Cautiously optimistic.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Thread title should really be "An Unexpected Sequel" now.
So the first movie is pretty much locked in. But are they gonna blow up the second movie or just add more stuff to make a 3rd? And how much additional shooting will need to be done?
I wonder how this changes the actors' deals? Like how many deals need to be changed because they agreed to 2 movies, not 3?
0
Options
HedgethornAssociate Professor of Historical Hobby HorsesIn the Lions' DenRegistered Userregular
I'd love to see Jackson make one of the movies the Downfall of Numenor. But somehow I doubt that's what he's pulling from the Appendices.
We know how much of the story of Bilbo Baggins, the Wizard Gandalf, the Dwarves of Erebor, the rise of the Necromancer, and the Battle of Dol Guldur will remain untold if we do not take this chance. The richness of the story of The Hobbit, as well as some of the related material in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings, allows us to tell the full story of the adventures of Bilbo Baggins and the part he played in the sometimes dangerous, but at all times exciting, history of Middle-earth.
On the one hand, the utter depth and richness of the Lord of the Rings books gave him plenty to work with, and even with the extended editions I would have loved to see even more.
On the other, while I liked King Kong overall I thought it was padded out too much and could have stood to have lost 20-30 minutes, and The Hobbit, even with the appendices of LOTR, is a lot smaller.
I'm choosing to be excited.
That could be it, so rather than doing a pair of three hour films, with half an hour each of extra stuff he's had to leave behind - it's three films just under two and a half hours
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
So the first movie is pretty much locked in. But are they gonna blow up the second movie or just add more stuff to make a 3rd? And how much additional shooting will need to be done?
I wonder how this changes the actors' deals? Like how many deals need to be changed because they agreed to 2 movies, not 3?
Per Jackson at Comic-Con last week, the first film is locked in.
As for the actors' deals, yes, new deals will need to be struck (Jackson has already said as much), and I honestly expect to hear about some new casting announcements.
The King Kong factor is what worries me. Without fetters we got a gigantically bloated film about a giant monkey that terrorizes New York. I haven't seen The Lovely Bones, but aside from some praise for Stanley's Tucci, word was not good.
You can make a perfectly good 2/2.5 hour long film out of The Hobbit, skipping nothing. Now they are making THREE of them?
Two was semi ridiculous, three is bonkers. They could include all of the Dwarf/Goblin war stuff in the LotR appendix and do the complete story in two movies.
So the first movie is pretty much locked in. But are they gonna blow up the second movie or just add more stuff to make a 3rd? And how much additional shooting will need to be done?
I wonder how this changes the actors' deals? Like how many deals need to be changed because they agreed to 2 movies, not 3?
Given they only wrapped a few weeks ago, I imagine the first movie is not locked in as much as you'd think. They're likely deep into editing and post-production, and can shift stuff around as needed. My only question now is where the splits between movies is going to occur.
EDIT: Word of god states that I'm wrong, so nevermind then!
Undead Scottsman on
0
Options
HedgethornAssociate Professor of Historical Hobby HorsesIn the Lions' DenRegistered Userregular
You can make a perfectly good 2/2.5 hour long film out of The Hobbit, skipping nothing. Now they are making THREE of them?
Two was semi ridiculous, three is bonkers. They could include all of the Dwarf/Goblin war stuff in the LotR appendix and do the complete story in two movies.
Is the third movie secretly the Simarillion???
Hell, the Rankin-Bass version of the Hobbit is well under 1.5 hours, and covers all the essential bases. 7+ hours of the Hobbit is madness.
You can make a perfectly good 2/2.5 hour long film out of The Hobbit, skipping nothing. Now they are making THREE of them?
Two was semi ridiculous, three is bonkers. They could include all of the Dwarf/Goblin war stuff in the LotR appendix and do the complete story in two movies.
Is the third movie secretly the Simarillion???
Hell, the Rankin-Bass version of the Hobbit is well under 1.5 hours, and covers all the essential bases. 7+ hours of the Hobbit is madness.
If by "covers" you mean "mostly touched on" you'd be correct. Beorn is cut entirely, the encounter with the Elves is truncated, Smaug's attack on Laketown and death is all of like, 5 minutes, the battle of five armies is barely there and everything after feels rushed.
I'm not saying I don't have reservations about 3 Hobbit movies, but to imply that the Rankin-Bass film did everything fine is a little off-base. That film rushed by so fast it can give you whiplash.
You can make a perfectly good 2/2.5 hour long film out of The Hobbit, skipping nothing. Now they are making THREE of them?
Two was semi ridiculous, three is bonkers. They could include all of the Dwarf/Goblin war stuff in the LotR appendix and do the complete story in two movies.
Is the third movie secretly the Simarillion???
Hell, the Rankin-Bass version of the Hobbit is well under 1.5 hours, and covers all the essential bases. 7+ hours of the Hobbit is madness.
If by "covers" you mean "mostly touched on" you'd be correct. Beorn is cut entirely, the encounter with the Elves is truncated, Smaug's attack on Laketown and death is all of like, 5 minutes, the battle of five armies is barely there and everything after feels rushed.
I'm not saying I don't have reservations about 3 Hobbit movies, but to imply that the Rankin-Bass film did everything fine is a little off-base. That film rushed by so fast it can give you whiplash.
Three films? Hmm. I kind of liked the simplicity of the Hobbit story, but hey, I guess I'll go see it
Freedom for the Northern Isles!
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Can someone with more Tolkien-Fu tell me what exactly from the Appendices could be reasonably woven into the greater Hobbit narrative that would justify three feature films?
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Can someone with more Tolkien-Fu tell me what exactly from the Appendices could be reasonably woven into the greater Hobbit narrative that would justify three feature films?
Aragorn and Arwen perhaps.
The siege of Dol Guldur.
Perhaps some flashbacks of the making and distribution of the rings?
There's more, but at what point does it stop being The Hobbit?
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Can someone with more Tolkien-Fu tell me what exactly from the Appendices could be reasonably woven into the greater Hobbit narrative that would justify three feature films?
Aragorn and Arwen perhaps.
The siege of Dol Guldur.
Perhaps some flashbacks of the making and distribution of the rings?
There's more, but at what point does it stop being The Hobbit?
I figured that Arwen and Aragorn might show up, but I don't know how that would work, since Arwen would look similar to her LOTR self while Aragorn would be in his late teens, right?
I actually hope that Jackson doesn't stretch The Hobbit narrative over three films. If we need a third film, tell a different story and give it a different title.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Can someone with more Tolkien-Fu tell me what exactly from the Appendices could be reasonably woven into the greater Hobbit narrative that would justify three feature films?
Aragorn and Arwen perhaps.
The siege of Dol Guldur.
Perhaps some flashbacks of the making and distribution of the rings?
There's more, but at what point does it stop being The Hobbit?
I figured that Arwen and Aragorn might show up, but I don't know how that would work, since Arwen would look similar to her LOTR self while Aragorn would be in his late teens, right?
I actually hope that Jackson doesn't stretch The Hobbit narrative over three films. If we need a third film, tell a different story and give it a different title.
Aragorn should look roughly the same age I think. Or at least, he should look roughly how old Viggo Mortenson is. Let me check that though.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Yeah, you're right. Aragorn should be ten in The Hobbit.
Can someone with more Tolkien-Fu tell me what exactly from the Appendices could be reasonably woven into the greater Hobbit narrative that would justify three feature films?
Siege of Dul Guldur and that's about it.
Anything else just doesn't fit within the actual story of The Hobbit. They'd feel stupidly grafted on.
I actually hope that Jackson doesn't stretch The Hobbit narrative over three films. If we need a third film, tell a different story and give it a different title.
That's my hope too. If he stretches the original narrative over 3 films, I get the feeling it's gonna be a fucking mess.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I'd be good with two "The Hobbits" and one "here's some shit that happens between now and then".
0
Options
Theodore Flooseveltproud parent of eight beautiful girls and shalmelodorne (which is currently being ruled by a woman (awesome role model for my daughters)) #dornedadRegistered Userregular
I'd be good with two "The Hobbits" and one "here's some shit that happens between now and then".
Agreed. Which was the original plan for the two movies, so maybe they'll take that approach with this additional movie that has just sprung up out of the ground
(which is more the Dwarves' style than a Hobbit's, really)
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
With Jackson's repeated emphasis on the appendices, I would really hope it's that bit that a third film would focus on, and not more Hobbit.
Rumor has it that the first film is going to end somewhere around the escape from Thranduil, which leaves approximately eight pages of text for the next two movies to sort through. Seriously, there's just not much that happens after the barrel-ride; it's just going to Laketown, getting into the Lonely Mountain, meeting Smaug in his lair, and the Battle of Five Armies. The End.
Granted, Tolkien's prose isn't filling the margins with details in The Hobbit, and there's a lot of inherencies that aren't explicitly addressed that Jackson could dig into, especially the latter chapters. A lot of shit happens between the time the company reaches Laketown and the end of the book, most of which is only given off-handed remarks. My guess is that Jackson is going to dig into these bits and flesh out the stories a bit more. Just off the top of my head:
- Who are the Men of Dale? What's their deal? Why is Bard so important? Who is he?
- What exactly is the Arkenstone? Why is Thorin so desperate for it?
- Just who the fuck is the Elvenking? What role does he fill in the politics of Middle Earth? Why is he such a petty asshole?
- What's going on with Dain Ironfoot? What's his role in the Dwarven kingdoms?
The fact that Jackson has hired AAA talent for some of these roles leads me to believe that these roles are going to get beefed up. To what extent, I can't suppose just yet. But you don't fly Luke Evans, Lee Pace, Stephen Fry, and Billy Connolly to New Zealand for a few weeks without giving them something to do.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Exactly my thoughts, Ross.
Look at that, we're agreeing all over the place this week.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Someone else said this before, but I could see it like this:
Movie 1: Everything in the Hobbit up to Out of the Frying Pan and Into the Fire - getting rescued by the eagles. Also in this, flashbacks to Gandalf in Dol Guldur meeting Thrain Oakenshield, getting the key, the map, etc.
Movie 2: Beorn, Mirkwood, the White Council taking down Dol Guldur, the dwarves escaping the palace by barrels
Movie 3: The rest (lake town, the climb up the mountain, bilbo + smaug, smaug laying waste to lake town, 5 armies)
the only problem with this is that the first movie is a bit action heavy. it hits the trolls, the giants (the lightning & thunder in the mountains), the goblin-town, goblin town escape, riddles in the dark, then the goblin/warg '15 birds in 5 fir trees' scene all in one movie.. might be a bit much, pacing wise, but the beorn recap works as a perfect movie break.
Posts
Everyone else is just along for the ride.
Don't kid yourself. Christopher Tolkien sees protecting and cataloguing his father's work as his personal holy mission.
Though he'll be dead eventually. Wonder who'll take over then.
The Silmarillion will only enter public domain if the copyright period isn't extended again. Basically, unless the big media companies somehow lose an enormous amount of political clout in the next 15 years, I'd expect that post Great-Depression literature/art/film/music will never enter the public domain; copyright periods will just keep getting longer and longer. (Right now they're what, 95 years after creator's death?)
At least one of the grandchildren (Micheal?) was publicly supportive of the Peter Jackson movies; it lead to Christopher publicly disowning him a few years back. So odds are good that Christopher won't pass on literary executor duties to him.
Your dad is dead, dude. You're not protecting shit by acting like a douchebag. You are literally helping noone by being this obstinate.
Oh, he's one of those.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/peter-jackson/an-unexpected-journey/10151114596546558
On the one hand, the utter depth and richness of the Lord of the Rings books gave him plenty to work with, and even with the extended editions I would have loved to see even more.
On the other, while I liked King Kong overall I thought it was padded out too much and could have stood to have lost 20-30 minutes, and The Hobbit, even with the appendices of LOTR, is a lot smaller.
I'm choosing to be excited.
I can see why Warners would go for this. The LOTR license is practically a printing press, and Warners has exhausted all their other tentpole franchises. But is there enough for three films? I really struggle to think so, and I'm really re-thinking a need for EE editions of The Hobbit films now.
Cautiously optimistic.
I wonder how this changes the actors' deals? Like how many deals need to be changed because they agreed to 2 movies, not 3?
That could be it, so rather than doing a pair of three hour films, with half an hour each of extra stuff he's had to leave behind - it's three films just under two and a half hours
Per Jackson at Comic-Con last week, the first film is locked in.
As for the actors' deals, yes, new deals will need to be struck (Jackson has already said as much), and I honestly expect to hear about some new casting announcements.
Two was semi ridiculous, three is bonkers. They could include all of the Dwarf/Goblin war stuff in the LotR appendix and do the complete story in two movies.
Is the third movie secretly the Simarillion???
EDIT: Word of god states that I'm wrong, so nevermind then!
Hell, the Rankin-Bass version of the Hobbit is well under 1.5 hours, and covers all the essential bases. 7+ hours of the Hobbit is madness.
If by "covers" you mean "mostly touched on" you'd be correct. Beorn is cut entirely, the encounter with the Elves is truncated, Smaug's attack on Laketown and death is all of like, 5 minutes, the battle of five armies is barely there and everything after feels rushed.
I'm not saying I don't have reservations about 3 Hobbit movies, but to imply that the Rankin-Bass film did everything fine is a little off-base. That film rushed by so fast it can give you whiplash.
But the music...gods was it perfect.
Aragorn and Arwen perhaps.
The siege of Dol Guldur.
Perhaps some flashbacks of the making and distribution of the rings?
There's more, but at what point does it stop being The Hobbit?
I figured that Arwen and Aragorn might show up, but I don't know how that would work, since Arwen would look similar to her LOTR self while Aragorn would be in his late teens, right?
I actually hope that Jackson doesn't stretch The Hobbit narrative over three films. If we need a third film, tell a different story and give it a different title.
Aragorn should look roughly the same age I think. Or at least, he should look roughly how old Viggo Mortenson is. Let me check that though.
Siege of Dul Guldur and that's about it.
Anything else just doesn't fit within the actual story of The Hobbit. They'd feel stupidly grafted on.
That's my hope too. If he stretches the original narrative over 3 films, I get the feeling it's gonna be a fucking mess.
Agreed. Which was the original plan for the two movies, so maybe they'll take that approach with this additional movie that has just sprung up out of the ground
(which is more the Dwarves' style than a Hobbit's, really)
Rumor has it that the first film is going to end somewhere around the escape from Thranduil, which leaves approximately eight pages of text for the next two movies to sort through. Seriously, there's just not much that happens after the barrel-ride; it's just going to Laketown, getting into the Lonely Mountain, meeting Smaug in his lair, and the Battle of Five Armies. The End.
Granted, Tolkien's prose isn't filling the margins with details in The Hobbit, and there's a lot of inherencies that aren't explicitly addressed that Jackson could dig into, especially the latter chapters. A lot of shit happens between the time the company reaches Laketown and the end of the book, most of which is only given off-handed remarks. My guess is that Jackson is going to dig into these bits and flesh out the stories a bit more. Just off the top of my head:
- Who are the Men of Dale? What's their deal? Why is Bard so important? Who is he?
- What exactly is the Arkenstone? Why is Thorin so desperate for it?
- Just who the fuck is the Elvenking? What role does he fill in the politics of Middle Earth? Why is he such a petty asshole?
- What's going on with Dain Ironfoot? What's his role in the Dwarven kingdoms?
The fact that Jackson has hired AAA talent for some of these roles leads me to believe that these roles are going to get beefed up. To what extent, I can't suppose just yet. But you don't fly Luke Evans, Lee Pace, Stephen Fry, and Billy Connolly to New Zealand for a few weeks without giving them something to do.
Look at that, we're agreeing all over the place this week.
Ugh. I need a shower now.
:P
Movie 1: Everything in the Hobbit up to Out of the Frying Pan and Into the Fire - getting rescued by the eagles. Also in this, flashbacks to Gandalf in Dol Guldur meeting Thrain Oakenshield, getting the key, the map, etc.
Movie 2: Beorn, Mirkwood, the White Council taking down Dol Guldur, the dwarves escaping the palace by barrels
Movie 3: The rest (lake town, the climb up the mountain, bilbo + smaug, smaug laying waste to lake town, 5 armies)
the only problem with this is that the first movie is a bit action heavy. it hits the trolls, the giants (the lightning & thunder in the mountains), the goblin-town, goblin town escape, riddles in the dark, then the goblin/warg '15 birds in 5 fir trees' scene all in one movie.. might be a bit much, pacing wise, but the beorn recap works as a perfect movie break.