New Line have settled with Tolkien estate

[Mary Hoffman]

According to my Bookseller bulletin, New Line and the Tolkien estate have settled out of court and the Hobbit movie(s) can go ahead.

It was beyond outrageous that the family should have needed the threat of a court action to get their agreed percentage on the multi-million grossing LOTR films (2003-2006) but at least it is now over.

Though if I were them I would have said to keep the Hobbit on hold till the cheque was in the bank.

And check this: Alan Horn, president & chief operating officer of New Line's parent company Warner Brothers, said: "We deeply value the contributions of the Tolkien novels to the success of our films and are pleased to have put this litigation behind us. We all look forward to a mutually productive and beneficial relationship in the future."

The contribution of the Tolkien novels to the success of our films.

Doesn't that just tell you where writers fit in the pecking order?

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

The contribution of the Tolkien novels to the success of our films.

Doesn't that just tell you where writers fit in the pecking order?

Actually, it's rather insulting, isn't it?

I'm glad they'll do the movies, though. At least ... I'm glad until and unless I have reason to be otherwise.

 

[Winters_Sorrow]

Glad to hear it's finally been resolved. Peter Jackson had similar problems with New Line regarding royalties as I recall, which was one of the reasons he declined to direct The Hobbit. So they have previous when it comes to trying to claw back as much of the money as possible.

As far as where writers sit in the film industry I think it's always been pretty close to the bottom. Apart from Charlie Kaufman and Stephen King (and arguably Philip K. Dick?) I can't think of many examples where films have been sold on the strength of the writers work rather than the actors/directors involved, though I'm sure others will enlighten me.

Yes, I can hear the Harry Potter crowd thundering over the horizon, but I class that as a single body of work. If JK Rowling ever creates an entirely separate work to Harry Potter and the studios make a successful movie out of that then maybe, but the reason I included the authors I mentioned above was that there are many examples of movies based on their work and, again arguably, one of the main selling points of the movie was who wrote it.

Simply put most of the money made from films tend to go to those fronting the cash to make them, which is why it's a business rather than an art form.

In the case of the Tolkien estate, I'm just glad that they had the business sense to draft a strong legal contract which it appears New Line feared that they couldn't get out of. Most studios prefer to buy out the writer completely so that they can keep any profits themselves.

 

[manephelien]

About time. New Line certainly doesn't come out of this smelling of roses, does it?

 

[j d worthington]

As far as where writers sit in the film industry I think it's always been pretty close to the bottom. Apart from Charlie Kaufman and Stephen King (and arguably Philip K. Dick?) I can't think of many examples where films have been sold on the strength of the writers work rather than the actors/directors involved, though I'm sure others will enlighten me.

Yes, there are other cases, but they are the exceptions. As for writers being "pretty close to the bottom" -- it has been summed up by numerous writers over the years as "In Hollywood, the writer is chattel". This dates back to the silent era, and things haven't changed one iota since....

 

[thepaladin]

In this case it's pretty clear there would have been no movie, no success, and no money were it not for....the writer. The prestige of Professor Tolkien and his work brought all the quality ingerdients to this project.

 

[Pyan]

"We deeply value the contributions of the Tolkien novels to the success of our films

I read this when I first logged on, and it's taken me until now to calm down sufficiently to post without risking an infraction...

 

[j d worthington]

In this case it's pretty clear there would have been no movie, no success, and no money were it not for....the writer. The prestige of Professor Tolkien and his work brought all the quality ingerdients to this project.

Well, with extremely rare exceptions, no movie would even be made without the writer. Without their concepts, and the words they provide for the characters, you might have some really great cinematography and some interesting-looking people and scenery (or special effects)... but that's about it. There wouldn't be a story, there wouldn't be anything for the actors and director to do. Yet somehow the producers, directors, and, not infrequently, the actors (hell, even the Best Boy!) tend to forget this inconvenient little fact, with the result that the writer who created the original material is, in 90+% of cases, treated as a bindlestiff asking for a handout. I'd say it's long past time they came to that realization, but frankly I doubt they ever will....

(And if you think this is an unusual case, you should try reading Harlan Ellison or Charles Beaumont on the subject....)

 

[Connavar]

I'm not even a fan of Tolkien but i thought what ? about this part

"We deeply value the contributions of the Tolkien novels to the success of our films"

Like its he is the script writer that work for them only to produce films for them.

 

[thepaladin]

True, I was only making ref. to prof. Tolkien. I doubt he ever even considered motion pictures. I in no way mean to slight other writers.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Yeah , Tolkein's novels definately contributed to making the LOTR trilogy a success. Not that they took TOO much notice of what was written in them...

 

[Lobolover]

@ pyan : youre a moderator, what could you say that could make you get an infraction ? :O

Well, never read the books myself, maybe because I wished to avoid the stigma of geting them publicly, seing they are prety much sold in the "big, very big, outrageously big" fonts format, which, apart from a few other things is an indicator of a "kid's book" . That's why I never finished the second book of Narnia - a man with a beard like mine, coming up to take that out of the library , like people don't stare at me enough .

Though I agree the "we value what the Lord of the Rings novel contributed to our Lord of the Rings movies" seems to lack a sufficient amount of forethought (of about two seconds) .

 

[thepaladin]

Don't want to jar...but TLoR is far froma "kids" series. What gave you that idea? The Hobbit, ya...but not the trilogy.

 

[Michael01]

In this case it's pretty clear there would have been no movie, no success, and no money were it not for....the writer. The prestige of Professor Tolkien and his work brought all the quality ingerdients to this project.

I have to agree entirely. Previous efforts to make a movie out of LotR were failures, despite the artistic quality of the "paintings in motion" animation. They made one film, which included The Fellowship of the Ring and about half of The Two Towers, then later aired a made-for-TV animated film called The Return of the King. I actually enjoyed them when I was a kid, considering we weren't getting much by way of fantasy films back then anyway (plus I love animation ).

There's no way that one movie could possibly have captured the story as brilliantly as Tolkien had portrayed it in his books, and it wasn't until Peter Jackson made one film for each book - as close to a faithful adaptation as he could under the circumstances - that they were successful.

EDIT: Haha! Paladin just reminded me that I wanted to mention that as well. Most likely they sell copies in big print these days because some fans are getting old and have failing eyesight. Otherwise, while it is appropriate for children (I suppose that's my opinion, anway), even The Hobbit is witten on a more adult reading level. Yes, I read all of them when I was nine, but I have to admit I struggled a bit with some of it. Shoot, I had some trouble with it when I read them again as an adult (although I didn't skip a chapter like I did the first time)! And the trilogy itself is definitely an adult story.

 

[K. Riehl]

This episode is why I think Orson Scott Card is doing it right with Ender's Game.
He retained control and was able to stop numerous teen idol versions, action only versions, stupid versions etc...
The movie may never get made (20+ years and counting) but I would rather never see a movie than have something happen like what happened to The Wizard of Earthsea.

The Tolkien adaptations by Peter Jackson and Blade Runner are the standards to which I think every director should seek to emulate.

 

[j d worthington]

True, I was only making ref. to prof. Tolkien. I doubt he ever even considered motion pictures. I in no way mean to slight other writers.

I don't see where you slighted anyone. Myself, I just mentioned others because they give added examples of how it is such a common practice in good old Hollyweird....

As for Tolkien not considering motion pictures... as I recall (it has been some years since I came across the reference) he was approached with the prospect, and may even have sold the rights to such an adaptation; he also knew full well that changes would have to be made given the difference in media; but I don't think he'd have been at all happy with this aspect of things....

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

pyan, youre a moderator, what could you say that could make you get an infraction ?

Moderators say plenty of things they could get an infraction for -- they just don't hit "submit reply" until they've edited them out.

That's why I never finished the second book of Narnia - a man with a beard like mine, coming up to take that out of the library , like people don't stare at me enough .

I take children's book out of the library and/or buy them at the bookstore all the time. I always have, and by now I am far beyond feeling embarassment. (I don't have the beard, of course. That would be embarrassing.) Anyway, most people, if they notice at all, will just think you're a kindly relative -- depending on your age, father, uncle, grandfather -- picking up a book for a child. Or, instead of one book, pick up several other children's classics at a time (you don't have to read them, but you might enjoy them immensely), and everyone will think you're a teacher.

My suggestion would be not to worry about it, and just check out what you want.

 

[thepaladin]

I don't worry about it, I simply read what takes my interest. My kids are grown but The Wizard of OZ is still on my shelf as are several other "youth books" I suppose most of us have read the Potter books. I greatly enjoyed Funke's "Ink" books. I was just supprised that TLoR had been taken for a child's or youth book.

 

[j d worthington]

Actually, though I read The Wonderful Wizard of Oz when a child, for some reason I didn't go for the rest of the set until many years later... I was in my twenties when I got them, and found them to be utterly delightful (some corny puns in there, but the books are utterly delightful, nonetheless)....

 

[Clansman]

This episode is why I think Orson Scott Card is doing it right with Ender's Game.
He retained control and was able to stop numerous teen idol versions, action only versions, stupid versions etc...
The movie may never get made (20+ years and counting) but I would rather never see a movie than have something happen like what happened to The Wizard of Earthsea.

The Tolkien adaptations by Peter Jackson and Blade Runner are the standards to which I think every director should seek to emulate.

What happened to A Wizard of Earthsea? I wasn't aware it had been made into anything.

Never mind. I just found the thread. Ugh. Lesson is: don't sell your film rights without retaining creative control. Make less money, but ensure your work endures in a manner that is true to its origins.