12 ms·

I'm a little torn on this. On one hand, the estate is clearly a victim of "Hollywood accounting" (as was Peter Jackson, I believe, which is why he refused to d

by acabal 14y ago

I'm a little torn on this. On one hand, the estate is clearly a victim of "Hollywood accounting" (as was Peter Jackson, I believe, which is why he refused to direct the Hobbit movie for such a long time). That's a downright criminal practice and "victims" perfectly describes those unfortunate enough to be targeted. On the other hand, JRR the man passed away years ago, and his son is almost 90. Copyright law says one thing, but at what point do we as humans say that the creator has died long ago, and his work should now pass to the public to retell as it sees fit? How long should his children, and their children, and their children, expect to control and profit off of the work of a long-dead man? (Yes C. Tolkien did some original stuff with Silmarillion and Hurin but we're talking Hobbit and LotR here.) That's a loaded question and obviously C. Tolkien and companies like Disney think copyright should be eternal. (And no doubt New Line now wishes its own copyright on its little gold mine would remain eternal too.) But personally I think stuff should enter the public domain much more aggressively for the good of culture and society. In such a world C. Tolkien might have made a little cash for a while, perhaps been happy that his family created a cultural touchstone, and maybe went on to do something original and no doubt productive with his own talent. But we'll never know, and now he's spending his last days growing increasingly embittered because he feels that he's lost control of something he didn't even create in the first place.

zanny 14y ago
I wouldn't call it loaded, because the same companies trying to screw over Tolkein Junior want these unlimited copyrights to stifle culture and innovation and hold a vicegrip on information. They are just hypocrites, but that is nothing new, they have been for decades. If the big businesses get to fuck over every new idea under the sun that borrows from creative works of the last century without a license, the descendent's of the creators of those works that still, by the hands of the same enterprise, inherit the licenses deserve their compensation. It is the house of cards built by Hollywood and they want to live in it.
pekk 14y ago
The validity of copyright really isn't the issue here... if anyone and everyone could make Tolkien films then C. Tolkien's desire to get paid might be worth discussing, but that simply isn't the case.
jspthrowaway2 14y ago
As a possibly-incorrect point of pedantry, I don't think New Line holds the "rights", though they distributed the film. Doesn't United Artists hold the rights? To be frank, I skimmed Wikipedia before leaving this comment, and I remain unsure. EDIT: Ah, Saul Zaentz's company, Middle-earth Enterprises, licensed the film rights to New Line. TIL. What a complicated situation.
- Turing_Machine 14y ago
  Ah, yes. Zaentz. The guy who once sued John Fogerty for sounding too much like...himself.
IvyMike 14y ago
> the estate is clearly a victim of "Hollywood accounting" I agree with you that this is an amoral practice, but the thing I can never understand: since virtually everyone is aware of this con, how is anyone still taken in by it? I mean, by all accounts the negotiations for the LOTR rights were tense--but neither Jackson's nor Tolkien's lawyer figured out to put a "percent of box office" clause in there?
- thasmin 14y ago
  It's technically legit. Here's one way they could do it. The movie studio makes no money on the movie. The studio sells the movie to the distribution company for a fixed amount. Then the distribution company made $300 million on it, but that's not part of the contract.
  - martinced 14y ago
    The easy way french actors do to "give the fingers" to Hollywood accounting is simple: a % given depending on the number of people going to see the movies in theaters. That's why actors like "Omar Sy" ("Les intouchables") are now very rich.
  - colonelxc 14y ago
    IvyMike wasn't asking how it was done, but why people still seem to get screwed by it. Why didn't Jackson's lawyers know better? Asking for something like a percentage of the box office sales, or similar should be standard practice.
    - michaelhoffman 14y ago
      Jackson's lawyers know to ask for a percentage of the gross. And the studio lawyers know not to give it up.
      - Evbn 14y ago
        Then Jackson doesn't make the movie, and the studio doesn't profit.
derleth 14y ago
> Copyright law says one thing, but at what point do we as humans say that the creator has died long ago, and his work should now pass to the public to retell as it sees fit? Especially in this case. Do you know why Dungeons and Dragons was able to be so Tolkien-esque without being sued? Because there actually was a court case, decades ago, and the only thing the court ruled that the Tolkien people (I don't know if J.R.R. was still alive at the time) actually owned was the word 'hobbit'. Everything else was taken from the public domain. Hence 'halflings' in all subsequent D&D works. Not that Dune, to pick an example, was that much more original, but with Tolkien's work it's especially easy to pick out the borrowings.
- Evbn 14y ago
  The languages and plots were original with Tolkien. The races were not.
  - stargazer-3 14y ago
    Would you care to expand a little bit here? I tend to think that most of the races were original.
    - ianstormtaylor 14y ago
      Pretty sure lots of the Tolkien races come from Norse mythology.
      - stargazer-3 14y ago
        They did (except for orcs and hobbits), but if not for LotR, they would not appear in popular fiction as they are appearing now. Besides, the comment above looks like it's disagreeing with originality of hobbits.
    - tellarin 14y ago
      Dwarfs, elves, trolls, goblins, and plenty others come from Norse mythology. Orc I think was original to Tolkien, but derived from Old English for giants and ogres. Many others, like uruk-hai and hobbit, were original. Also, even though some of the races come from Norse mythology, Tolkien's description of them and their habits are unique (and many times quite different from the "sources").
Ingaz 14y ago
It's not only a question about copyright laws, money, etc. Popularization of JRR works sometimes disgusting. The most disgusting thing(for me, and I think I'm not lonely): LONG ELVEN EARS. JRR almost reinvented elves. He transcend them from butterfly-like insects into unearthly beautiful beings almost like humans, but in every aspect better. This effort is ruined: now everybody knows that elves are "guys/gals with long ears". Of cause: it's a lot easier to make long ears, than to make ... unearthly beauty. (Excuse me my Runglish )
- braveheart1723 14y ago
  best comic book guy answer ever
- Evbn 14y ago
  I thought the Dwarves were the ones that were like humans but better.
  - qznc 14y ago
    "The Dwarves have a peculiar history. The first Seven Fathers of the Dwarves were actually created before the Elves by Aulë, beneath the mountains and against the will of Eru Ilúvatar. Eru was displeased with Aulë's rogue action, and ordered them destroyed. As Aulë rose his great hammer to smite his creations and children forever, he wept, and the Dwarves begged for mercy in fear. Seeing this, Eru decided that their life was valuable and that they should live, but the Dwarves must sleep until it is their time to walk Middle-Earth, so they were granted long life so they could hibernate as time elapsed." Source: http://lotr.neoseeker.com/wiki/Of_the_Dwarves http://lotr.neoseeker.com/wiki/Of_the_Dwarves So the dwarves were kind of a first draft done by an angel instead of the actual creato/god.
- stargazer-3 14y ago
  A quick note about elves: it's a misconception that before Tolkien's work an elf was pictured as a fey. Nordic elves were very Tolkien-ish, for example.
  - 14y ago
virtualwhys 14y ago
I'm actual a strong advocate of "deferred inheritance", which is to say, when one of your wealthy ancestors donated vast sums of money and/or property to X organisation, his/her descendants implicitly have the right to take it all back at any point in time -- imagine the havoc that would cause ;-)
twelvechairs 14y ago
You are putting the wrong argument to this situation. C. Tolkein is obviously far less concerned regarding the financial situation 'to control and profit off the work of a long-dead man' (in your words) and far more concerned with the disneyfication of the stories and characters. This come across pretty strongly in the article, for example he says "The commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing". The way he chooses to pursue this is denying/restricting crappy productions as far as possible. I happen to agree that Tolkeins books were quite special and the films pretty run-of-the-mill. I'm not so sure thats a big problem, or one that can be solved using copyright to block other interpretations, however I am sure the primary intent is not monetary.
- acabal 14y ago
  I understand that he's not primarily concerned with money, but I still think that after a certain, comparatively short amount of time after the creator's death, IP should be released to the public. If the public wants to Disnify it, then so be it; the originals are still around for the rest of us to enjoy. Actually I think this perspective was how copyright was first imagined--it was only recently made outrageous by corporations like Disney. C. Tolkien seems to disagree, and his desire for complete control over books he didn't even write seems to be both stifling genuine re-imaginings of modern classics by a long-dead author, and making him fairly unhappy. I'm picking on Tolkien but obviously this applies to a huge amount of IP out there that's in a similar situation.
  - twelvechairs 14y ago
    I broadly agree with you on issues of IP, but just think your characterization of this case (especially of the intentions of C. Tolkein) was off, and that your general argument is probably stronger for other cases of IP rather than this particular one.
- raverbashing 14y ago
  "The commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing" He is wrong but it certainly looks like that. You don't have to care for the commercialization of the stuff and Happy Meals with Hobbit toys. The aesthetics and philosophy are still there.
anthonyb 14y ago
I might agree with you, except that's it's not really how "the public" sees fit, is it? It's been turned into a Hollywood blockbuster, rather than something closer to the original book. Why does the movie even have to be "The Lord of the Rings" anyway? Most of the races and themes are fairly well public domain - there were lawsuits around D&D that saw to that. Peter Jackson doing a fantasy action movie would still do well.

by acabal 14y ago

zanny 14y ago

I wouldn't call it loaded, because the same companies trying to screw over Tolkein Junior want these unlimited copyrights to stifle culture and innovation and hold a vicegrip on information. They are just hypocrites, but that is nothing new, they have been for decades. If the big businesses get to fuck over every new idea under the sun that borrows from creative works of the last century without a license, the descendent's of the creators of those works that still, by the hands of the same enterprise, inherit the licenses deserve their compensation. It is the house of cards built by Hollywood and they want to live in it.

pekk 14y ago

The validity of copyright really isn't the issue here... if anyone and everyone could make Tolkien films then C. Tolkien's desire to get paid might be worth discussing, but that simply isn't the case.

jspthrowaway2 14y ago

As a possibly-incorrect point of pedantry, I don't think New Line holds the "rights", though they distributed the film. Doesn't United Artists hold the rights? To be frank, I skimmed Wikipedia before leaving this comment, and I remain unsure. EDIT: Ah, Saul Zaentz's company, Middle-earth Enterprises, licensed the film rights to New Line. TIL. What a complicated situation.

Turing_Machine 14y ago
Ah, yes. Zaentz. The guy who once sued John Fogerty for sounding too much like...himself.

IvyMike 14y ago

> the estate is clearly a victim of "Hollywood accounting" I agree with you that this is an amoral practice, but the thing I can never understand: since virtually everyone is aware of this con, how is anyone still taken in by it? I mean, by all accounts the negotiations for the LOTR rights were tense--but neither Jackson's nor Tolkien's lawyer figured out to put a "percent of box office" clause in there?

thasmin 14y ago
It's technically legit. Here's one way they could do it. The movie studio makes no money on the movie. The studio sells the movie to the distribution company for a fixed amount. Then the distribution company made $300 million on it, but that's not part of the contract.
- martinced 14y ago
  The easy way french actors do to "give the fingers" to Hollywood accounting is simple: a % given depending on the number of people going to see the movies in theaters. That's why actors like "Omar Sy" ("Les intouchables") are now very rich.
- colonelxc 14y ago
  IvyMike wasn't asking how it was done, but why people still seem to get screwed by it. Why didn't Jackson's lawyers know better? Asking for something like a percentage of the box office sales, or similar should be standard practice.
  - michaelhoffman 14y ago
    Jackson's lawyers know to ask for a percentage of the gross. And the studio lawyers know not to give it up.
    - Evbn 14y ago
      Then Jackson doesn't make the movie, and the studio doesn't profit.

derleth 14y ago

> Copyright law says one thing, but at what point do we as humans say that the creator has died long ago, and his work should now pass to the public to retell as it sees fit? Especially in this case. Do you know why Dungeons and Dragons was able to be so Tolkien-esque without being sued? Because there actually was a court case, decades ago, and the only thing the court ruled that the Tolkien people (I don't know if J.R.R. was still alive at the time) actually owned was the word 'hobbit'. Everything else was taken from the public domain. Hence 'halflings' in all subsequent D&D works. Not that Dune, to pick an example, was that much more original, but with Tolkien's work it's especially easy to pick out the borrowings.

Evbn 14y ago
The languages and plots were original with Tolkien. The races were not.
- stargazer-3 14y ago
  Would you care to expand a little bit here? I tend to think that most of the races were original.
  - ianstormtaylor 14y ago
    Pretty sure lots of the Tolkien races come from Norse mythology.
    - stargazer-3 14y ago
      They did (except for orcs and hobbits), but if not for LotR, they would not appear in popular fiction as they are appearing now. Besides, the comment above looks like it's disagreeing with originality of hobbits.
  - tellarin 14y ago
    Dwarfs, elves, trolls, goblins, and plenty others come from Norse mythology. Orc I think was original to Tolkien, but derived from Old English for giants and ogres. Many others, like uruk-hai and hobbit, were original. Also, even though some of the races come from Norse mythology, Tolkien's description of them and their habits are unique (and many times quite different from the "sources").

Ingaz 14y ago

It's not only a question about copyright laws, money, etc. Popularization of JRR works sometimes disgusting. The most disgusting thing(for me, and I think I'm not lonely): LONG ELVEN EARS. JRR almost reinvented elves. He transcend them from butterfly-like insects into unearthly beautiful beings almost like humans, but in every aspect better. This effort is ruined: now everybody knows that elves are "guys/gals with long ears". Of cause: it's a lot easier to make long ears, than to make ... unearthly beauty. (Excuse me my Runglish )

braveheart1723 14y ago
best comic book guy answer ever
Evbn 14y ago
I thought the Dwarves were the ones that were like humans but better.
- qznc 14y ago
  "The Dwarves have a peculiar history. The first Seven Fathers of the Dwarves were actually created before the Elves by Aulë, beneath the mountains and against the will of Eru Ilúvatar. Eru was displeased with Aulë's rogue action, and ordered them destroyed. As Aulë rose his great hammer to smite his creations and children forever, he wept, and the Dwarves begged for mercy in fear. Seeing this, Eru decided that their life was valuable and that they should live, but the Dwarves must sleep until it is their time to walk Middle-Earth, so they were granted long life so they could hibernate as time elapsed." Source: http://lotr.neoseeker.com/wiki/Of_the_Dwarves http://lotr.neoseeker.com/wiki/Of_the_Dwarves So the dwarves were kind of a first draft done by an angel instead of the actual creato/god.
stargazer-3 14y ago
A quick note about elves: it's a misconception that before Tolkien's work an elf was pictured as a fey. Nordic elves were very Tolkien-ish, for example.
- 14y ago

virtualwhys 14y ago

I'm actual a strong advocate of "deferred inheritance", which is to say, when one of your wealthy ancestors donated vast sums of money and/or property to X organisation, his/her descendants implicitly have the right to take it all back at any point in time -- imagine the havoc that would cause ;-)

twelvechairs 14y ago

You are putting the wrong argument to this situation. C. Tolkein is obviously far less concerned regarding the financial situation 'to control and profit off the work of a long-dead man' (in your words) and far more concerned with the disneyfication of the stories and characters. This come across pretty strongly in the article, for example he says "The commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing". The way he chooses to pursue this is denying/restricting crappy productions as far as possible. I happen to agree that Tolkeins books were quite special and the films pretty run-of-the-mill. I'm not so sure thats a big problem, or one that can be solved using copyright to block other interpretations, however I am sure the primary intent is not monetary.

acabal 14y ago
I understand that he's not primarily concerned with money, but I still think that after a certain, comparatively short amount of time after the creator's death, IP should be released to the public. If the public wants to Disnify it, then so be it; the originals are still around for the rest of us to enjoy. Actually I think this perspective was how copyright was first imagined--it was only recently made outrageous by corporations like Disney. C. Tolkien seems to disagree, and his desire for complete control over books he didn't even write seems to be both stifling genuine re-imaginings of modern classics by a long-dead author, and making him fairly unhappy. I'm picking on Tolkien but obviously this applies to a huge amount of IP out there that's in a similar situation.
- twelvechairs 14y ago
  I broadly agree with you on issues of IP, but just think your characterization of this case (especially of the intentions of C. Tolkein) was off, and that your general argument is probably stronger for other cases of IP rather than this particular one.
raverbashing 14y ago
"The commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing" He is wrong but it certainly looks like that. You don't have to care for the commercialization of the stuff and Happy Meals with Hobbit toys. The aesthetics and philosophy are still there.

anthonyb 14y ago

I might agree with you, except that's it's not really how "the public" sees fit, is it? It's been turned into a Hollywood blockbuster, rather than something closer to the original book. Why does the movie even have to be "The Lord of the Rings" anyway? Most of the races and themes are fairly well public domain - there were lawsuits around D&D that saw to that. Peter Jackson doing a fantasy action movie would still do well.