Christopher Tolkien's take on Peter Jackson's movies

[Elaini]

I found an article about Christopher's stance on Jackson's depictions on his father's work.

My Father's "Eviscerated" Work - Son Of Hobbit Scribe J.R.R. Tolkien Finally Speaks Out (2012)

As you can see, he isn't a fan.

 

[Gilgaearel]

By the time that his father sold the rights of these two books there was nothing that Christopher Tolkien could do to change how the studios would use the stories that they bought.
I don't think though, and the article doesn't say, that Tolkien sold all the different kinds of copyright. The intellectual property right for instance can't be sold as far as I know, so the book and the story will always have to be attributed to J.R.R. Tolkien and that is the reason why the studio and the production company were forced to pay the 7.5% of their profits. Because they had to use the name of the original author as otherwise they wouldn't be able to sell the movies.

According to wikipedia now just the LOTR films brought to the production company $2,917,506,956. The 7.5% of these ( without the merchandising and all else) is 216,705,521. The Hobbit series brought similar profits to the company so the Tolkien Estate probably got another 200+ millions from the other three movies without calculating again the same percentage on the profits from the merchandising and whatever else they sold.

I assume that the Tolkien Estate wouldn't sell the rights of LOTR and The Hobbit books, but on the other hand the amount of money it got was close to the amount of money that J.K Rowling got for the Harry Potter movies. So I think that the arrangement turned out fine for Tolkien's Estate and in expanse for the Tolkien family and though Christopher Tolkien isn't a fan of the movies he has no reason to complain any more for the decisions of his father.

 

[Gothmog]

But Christopher Tolkien was not complaining for the decisions of his father but, like many of us, for the decisions of Jackson and the studio. J.R.R.T. knew that the LoTR could not be put on film with out changes. One in particular was Tom Bombadil who he thought should be left out entirely including all of Tom's dialog. Tolkien's view was that if a character was removed from the story then all dialog from that character should likewise be removed and not put in someone else's mouth where it would have a different meaning.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

Yes indeed, and as he made clear in his comments on Z's treatment, what he feared most was not abridgement, but compression, along with anticipation, both of which PJ was guilty of, beginning with the Prologue. The slow unfolding of a series of mysteries (I should say "riddles") in the books was flattened and lost, due to PJ's distrust of his audience.

Well, that, or incompetence.

 

[Valandil]

DID the Tolkien Estate benefit financially from the movies? I thought they "showed no profit" in good Hollywood style.

 

[Alcuin]

Tolkien Estate sued and eventually settled with the movie company. I am not certain, but there may have been two lawsuits.

A similar situation exists with David Prowse, who was promised royalties in his contract, but is told the films never made any profit.

These two situations tell us all we need to know about the relation between Hollywood and Washington. Governments are always starved for taxes, but somehow Hollywood is never held to the same standards in accounting or in law or in court as the rest of us.

 

[Valandil]

Tolkien Estate sued and eventually settled with the movie company. I am not certain, but there may have been two lawsuits.

A similar situation exists with David Prowse, who was promised royalties in his contract, but is told the films never made any profit.

These two situations tell us all we need to know about the relation between Hollywood and Washington. Governments are always starved for taxes, but somehow Hollywood is never held to the same standards in accounting or in law or in court as the rest of us.

The David Prowse reference - is that Star Wars? He was the guy who wore the Vader suit in the original, right?

 

[Alcuin]

The David Prowse reference - is that Star Wars? He was the guy who wore the Vader suit in the original, right?

Yes. The Prowse situation is a well-known case. He was to receive some portion of the profits from at least Return of the Jedi, but has been told the film shows a loss. Hollywood accounting.

 

[Elaini]

Though in the case of Lotr movie trilogy there was no way to claim it as a flop by New Line Cinema. Still they held the promised payments from the people they were promised to.

And I take that intergrating NLC back into Warner Brothers was a proof that their accounting was done very poorly. And during the time of The Hobbit the movie makers were again more clearly in the leash of Hollywood.

 

[Olorgando]

According to wikipedia now just the LOTR films brought to the production company $2,917,506,956. The 7.5% of these ( without the merchandising and all else) is 216,705,521. The Hobbit series brought similar profits to the company so the Tolkien Estate probably got another 200+ millions from the other three movies without calculating again the same percentage on the profits from the merchandising and whatever else they sold.

As Wikipedia just enlightened me (to my total astonishment), that 7.5% actually is "of the gross from any films based on his works". The film industry (and perhaps some related ones) certainly march to the beat of different drummers from the run-of-the-mill economy (including multinani0onal companies). Stuff gets distributed from net profits, mostly.