Must Christoper Tolkien Die?

[spshu]

Matthew Colville explains the whole licensing deal with New Line and Saul Zaentz production d.b.a. (doing business as) Tolkien Enterprises as opposes to the Tolkien Estate run by Christopher Tolkien in his blog postChristoper Tolkien Must Die!

[Cut]

I was sceptical at first, but it proved to be an interesting read nevertheless.

As I don't have the energy right now: Who is that guy that wrote this? What was his position with Decipher?

[Doug Burke]

As I don't have the energy right now: Who is that guy that wrote this? What was his position with Decipher?

Matt held many positions at Decipher (and LUG). He worked with Don to come up with the starship combat system for CODA. He was standing in as line developer when I started the LOTR FAQ (In fact, you can blame Matt for the FAQ/Errata/CRF format). Last I heard he was working for Pandemic helping design video games...

Nice guy. I tend to trust his opinion on gaming-related subjects. But that could just be me...

[REG]

A recent article from LA Times put more details regarding the licensing agreement.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...,2775685.story

According to their lawsuit and lawyer Bonnie Eskenazi, Tolkien licensed motion picture rights to United Artists back in 1969 for a low six-figure sum and 7.5% of the "gross receipts." Gross receipts are the money the distributor actually gets from the theaters and ancillary markets. (In the case of theatrical income, it's usually about 50% of the box-office take.) "This is a deal under which we get a percentage of the gross once an artificial break-even is reached. The artificial break-even is essentially 2.6 times the negative cost of the film," says Eskenazi.

New Line, which eventually secured the rights, was allowed to deduct some costs from its "Lord of the Rings" income such as taxes, but not the big-ticket expenses that studios like to take -- such as distribution fees or overhead, according to Eskenazi. So even with all the loot that New Line has pocketed on the films, there is not a shekel, a ducat, a baht, a euro or a dollar for some elderly Tolkiens? Eskenazi estimates the family is owed $150 million, but even that number is a little fuzzy.

It would sound reasonable even back then when JRR Tolkien was alive to make such a deal that includes a percentage of the gross receipt, even though they thought the film adaptation to his work is unfilmable, in their minds. I wonder if they got a percentage when the animated Rankin-Bass adaptation were in theater back then.

But as much as I detest Christoper Tolkien, not all of JRR families are bad, but through the Tolkien Estate I believe they're entitled to their share of the films' revenue. As much as the evil twin in me agrees with Matt's statement, I'd rather much have Chris be removed from his position as the leading Trustee of JRR's Estate, and his Sauron-like influential powers regarding the franchise be diminished.

[The Tatterdemalion King]

I'm kinda sympathetic to Chris Tolkien's position, frankly.

[DuneMessiah]

I fully agree, Mr. King. And there are a thousand reasons for this, for sure!

[The Tatterdemalion King]

I mean, at least Star Trek started off as a television show. So many of the interpretive acts which Chris Tolkien is trying to return to the hands of the readers have been done when you put something on screen–and an action figure becomes a gateway for a kid wanting to play Captain Kirk, rather than someone else's lame version of Gollum that isn't as cool as yours.

To be honest, I kind of want to see Lord of the Rings given the Shakespeare treatment. With the Bard, we're given all these different movie variations on each play, choosing an element of the story or meaning to emphasize over another, rather than an attempt at being the 'definitive' version. I want to see the Ran treatment of LotR.

[REG]

To be honest, I kind of want to see Lord of the Rings given the Shakespeare treatment. With the Bard, we're given all these different movie variations on each play, choosing an element of the story or meaning to emphasize over another, rather than an attempt at being the 'definitive' version. I want to see the Ran treatment of LotR.

I don't think JRR had Shakespeare in mind when he wrote Middle-Earth.

I also don't think Chris -- for whom you sympathize -- would want such a treatment be adapted to his father's work.

In his own mind, JRR Tolkien is THE Bard, and Shakespeare is nothing more than the father of modern-day soap opera.

[The Tatterdemalion King]

I don't think JRR had Shakespeare in mind when he wrote Middle-Earth.

No, it was Beowulf and the Kalevala. And how many versions of Beowulf have there been in the past two decades?

Remember, we're talking about a work which already has two very different film versions of it. While Tolkien the Younger may dislike having filmic interpretations take the centre stage in reader's imaginations, the existence of concurrent and differing adaptions, with the concomitant variation of focus, phrasing, mood and theme returns the viewer–and the reader–to the position of active interpretor, choosing and being aware of the choice between modes of seeing the work. And that is something that any work of import should have.

[REG]

Meh. If Chris is so concerned that one's adaptation (i.e., Peter Jackson's) of his father's work is going to supersede everyone else's own motion picture adaptations/interpretations, he and his father should never have sold the film's right in the first place.

AFAIC, PJ's LOTR is his adaptation of Tolkien's most popular works. Whether you agree or disagree to the adaptation is your right. One has to learn you can't please everyone. I mean, if Ian McKellan isn't your idea of Gandalf, that's okay. If you prefer Dourgray Scott over Viggo Mortensen as Strider, go right ahead. If you think the Rivendell Council meeting should be lengthy and unabridged, your prerogative.

[The Tatterdemalion King]

AFAIC, PJ's LOTR is his adaptation of Tolkien's most popular works. Whether you agree or disagree to the adaptation is your right.

Agree or disagree about what?

[REG]

Agree or disagree about what?

Whether it is to your liking, or how you imagined it, or his version is better or worse than what you have imagined LOTR.

All I'm saying is that PJ's adpatation is not definitive LOTR. I'm sure Chris knows that ... I'm hopeful.

[The Tatterdemalion King]

Whether it is to your liking, or how you imagined it, or his version is better or worse than what you have imagined LOTR.

The value of alternative versions is that they throw your own understanding of the work into greater contrast, and in doing so reflect the reasons why you interpret it that way back at you.

[DuneMessiah]

The existence of varying public manifestations of a work of fiction liberates the viewers (or readers) vision of the work again from the oppressive feeling that a single representation might have on him.
That means if you read a book, you make your own private interpretation of it.. Then you see the movie and in most cases people therafter might not be able to enyoj the book again as they did before because the movie will cloud their fantasy. But if there are several films about the book this will most likely not happen. Or at least the reader has the choice of wich aspects of which movie he will integrate into his vision. And most of the time it won't be the aspects that had the most budget dediated to special effects...
...at least this is my humble personal experience.

[The Tatterdemalion King]

I just wish more experimentation was done when actually adapting material; how many space-opera-ified versions of Dune do we need? I'd like to see a Wire-esque take on the bureaucratic, pompous cattiness that pervades the book's universe.