PJ going against guidelines laid out by Tolkien??

[anduin]

I found this article (http://www.theonering.net/movie/scrapbook/large/1573) at TOR.N. In the third column, second paragraph is says: Factoid: Tolkien sold the movie rights to his work in 1971 and laid down strict guidelines for their use. None of his characters could be used in scenes that were not in his books.....

Isn't PJ going against those guildlines when he puts Arwen (just one example!) in scenes where she does not belong according to the book? And what of adding characters to the movie that never existed in Tolkien's books at all like Lurtz?

How were they able to get around these guidelines that were specified by Tolkien himself in case a movie was ever made?

[Fat middle]

AFAIK, the only confirmed extra scene with Arwen is the flight to the Ford. well, properly this scene is not an extra, but Arwen IS an extra in it ;) Anyway i think it's not a major fault as far as they don't change any more Arwen's character (though this riskful scene is a good deal of a change :o )

the worst change for me is the confirmed impalement of Saruman. i think that was precissely what Tolkien was trying to avoid in that condition.:mad:

[Darth Tater]

Nice find anduin! Maybe if the movie really sucks the Tolkien Estate can use this against them

[jediguy]

I thought it was confirmed that the spikes were NOT for impaling Saruman, and that he dies some other way, besides that oh-so-cliche impalement.

[Darth Tater]

Sorry, no such happy news

[Mouth of Sauron]

Yeah, supposedly Saruman's death impaled on the spikes has been confirmed. Maybe PJ's just messing with our heads. I hope so. If you start pulling threads at random, you unravel the whole story. Cutting out Bombadil means no Barrow Downs, and killing Saruman off that way means no Scouring of the Shire, or at the very least a completely different version of that ending. Contemplating it makes me ill.

[AbacusTafai]

Wait... without the Barrow Downs, where do Pippin, Merry, and Sam get their swords from? And how will they explain the roasting of one of the swords in the killing of the Nazgul King (why it worked at all)? Bombadil is an entremely integeral part of the story. Why they are leaving it out is beyond me.

[Wayfarer]

I heard aragorn give them the barrow daggers. Although the barrow downs were important for more than that. That was the scene where frodo first showed his courage and resiliance, without it, him being able to survive teh morgul wound makes less sense.

[Ñólendil]

I once read Michael Martinez point out that Aragorn is going to look very stupid if he's wandering around Eriador with a broken sword while he's got four fine Númenórean blades handy.

But if you look at pics from the Weathertop scene, there's a whole heap of blades just lying on the ground (Aragorn's using one to fight a Ringwraith). I guess that's where the Hobbits get them.

As for the significance of the Barrow-blades (or Weather-blades?), it certainly seems as though it's being dropped considerably. In Mória Pippin and Merry leap on the Cave-troll's back and start stabbing away, but it has no effect on it, the thing just flings them off. I wonder how Pippin is expected to do anything in the battle before the Black Gate against those Hill-trolls.

But I've also heard that PJ has assured fans that people who want to believe the Old Forest and Barrow-down stuff happened will be able to. Will an expanse of time go by, and the Hobbits emerge suddenly with swords at their belts?

[AbacusTafai]

If that happens, so help me...

[Ñólendil]

It doesn't seem like fans can be pleased whatever the possibility, based on your post and others. If the latter scenario happens as I just said, it would be more in accord with the original story, but you feel it would hurt the movie (as a movie). If the Hobbits get their swords from Weathertop it won't be in accord with the original story (although not a problem as a movie). And if Aragorn gives them the swords in Bree neither (movie or book representation) will be served very well.

I think the best thing a Tolkien fan can do is to sit back, relax, and appreciate it as a movie. Or at least to try.

[thephantomcat]

I recently read an interview with PJ and he said that the story about Tolkien putting a clause was a myth. Also, Tom was rightfully cut from the movie. While his scene worked well in Tolkien's novel as far as pacing went, it would kill the flow of the movie. You people sound like you already hate the movie.

[samwise of the shire]

Darth Tater I'm under the impression you WANT the Lord Of The Rings to fail.
Well even though there may not be a Scouring of the Shire there WILL be a departure at the grey havens so I do think that there will be a Scouring even though Saruman might not be behind it, and it does'nt HAVE to be Saruman just like it does'nt HAVE to be Glorfindel leading the hobbits and Strider to Rivendell or it does'nt HAVE to be Gandalf that lights off his dragon firecracker(apparently it's Merry and Pippin that light it off which I find quite amusing and funny). :)
I think that even though jumping on the trolls back does'nt work at least they do something,I've read that passage quite a few imes and it does'nt mention Merry and Pippin doing anything so I'm glad they got their rears in gear sooner then T2T.
Sam
ps.Relax,if it does'nt go according to OUR plans then we dont need to pout about it.

[Ñólendil]

phantomcat, as a nit-picker it is my unfortunate duty to inform you that the Lord of the Rings is not a novel :) It's a heroic romance.

[anduin]

Inoldonil....you have been stuck on 666 posts this entire thread. Weird, eh?

[Ñólendil]

For those others of you who have not observed bmilder's explanation on another forum, anduin was here mistaken. She had me worked up though.

[Tessar]

ok but you all have to remember that there was the part in the barowdowns where tom sayed that bit about running naked upon the grass do you now see why they might want to leave that out?

[Captain Stern]

Samwise of the Shire, you think it doesn't HAVE to be Saruman behind the scouring of the Shire?!?!

Have you even read the book? Or did you just read "Of the Rings of Power" in the back of "The Silmarillion"?

[Amandil]

Who the (***********************) is Lurtz?

*Amandil clutches his head in his hands and moans*

[Comic Book Guy]

Lurtz is an new addition to the Lord of the Rings made by the creative writers of the new movies. He's the the first Uruk-hai breed by Saruman out of pods. He's going to be the orc that kills Boromir.

[Amandil]

Well, isn't that cute!

(*%@!%&*&^%@#!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!)

[Ñólendil]

:D

[samwise of the shire]

Why make a fuss about Lurtz? Sure he's added in but why not give the orc as killed Boromir a name? And then imagine the revenge we will have when Lurtz(heck we know his name and thus we can hate him all the more)dies at the hands of a rider, Ugluk, or Saruman. Not,but I dont think he will be well liked by audiences, first off he KILLS Boromir and he's a cool character, then if he does that he MIGHT help carry the Hobbits off or maybe even knock one of them in the head.That should get people really mad at him and his fellow orcs.Then we should see some grumbling and then we can show off our superior knowledge.
Sam

[Comic Book Guy]

Does anybody have any ideas why they coudn't just change Ugluk's character, If they can change Arwen, why not an orc?

[Michael Martinez]

All the changes made to the storyline for the movies were made based upon personal preferences (of the writing team), or because things had to unfold in certain ways.

Bombadil is vital to the literary story and they have had to radically alter the cinematic story in order to exclude him. Is that a good thing? A bad thing? It doesn't have to be either. But even if it's the worse thing that Peter Jackson could possibly have done to the storyline, it's way too late to lament the departure from the book.

And, for what it's worth, to the best of my knowledge, Tolkien sold the film rights to United Artists in 1967. I have no idea of where the 1971 figure in the article on TORN came from. Of course, my source could just as likely be wrong as the reporter's source, for all I know.

[anduin]

Regardless of the date, don't you think that he would have made some sort of guidelines? And if he did sell the rights to UA, did they then turn around and sell them to New Line? What more do you know about the film rights MM??

[Michael Martinez]

So far as I know, there is no way you can stipulate guidelines when you sell the rights to something. You can limit which rights you sell or you license the rights (meaning, you retain some power of revocation or the rights revert to you under specific circumstances).

Tolkien SOLD the film and merchandising rights to United Artists for both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Saul Zaentz in turn acquired the rights from United Artists, and he said up Tolkien Enterprises to administer them. What this means is that any time some film company or producer wants to take out an option (essentially, reserve the right to make a movie based on either of the books), they have to go to Tolkien Enterprises. J.R.R. Tolkien's wishes and preferences, and his estate, have no impact on what happens.

Now, stage adaptations, so far as I know, as well as radio adaptations, are still controlled by the Tolkien Estate. It's my understanding that schools get a pretty easy process to follow in acquiring limited rights to produce plays. At least, there have been a lot of "Hobbit" plays through the years and the Tolkien Estate seems to have sanctioned many if not all of them.

Commercial stage adaptations have to license the rights, but so far as I know, the stage rights have never been sold and probably never will be.

As far as New Line Cinema goes, they don't own the film rights. They have entered into a contract whereby they licensed the film rights for (I think) 9 years. I may be off by a year or two. That is, in another 6 years (or thereabouts), the film rights revert to Tolkien Enterprises, and at that time they can (hopefully will) start looking around for someone else to develop another movie.

And I say "hopefully" because it has long been my hope that we would see many film adaptations. I certainly expect and hope to enjoy the Peter Jackson movies, but I don't want the Tolkien cinematic tradition to end with the Jackson movies, or to go on a long-term hiatus.

And I don't see any reason for why a studio MUST do the entire story. I was very interested in the "Elessar" project before that was put on hold (it would have told the story of the young Aragorn when he met Arwen). I would like to see other movies come out which mine the depths of these books.

[Ñólendil]

Just noticed something.

Samwise of the Shire, you think it doesn't HAVE to be Saruman behind the scouring of the Shire?!?!

Have you even read the book? Or did you just read "Of the Rings of Power" in the back of "The Silmarillion"?

That's a little harsh, don't you think? I agree with Samwise, technically, it doesn't have to be Saruman. Just like it doesn't have to be Tom that gives the Hobbits their Barrow-daggers. I prefer Tolkien's written story of course, but the movies will not be dependent upon Saruman in the Scouring for success.

MM, I'd like to see a movie on Amroth and Nimrodel. If the legend was treated seriously and with respect, I think it could come out very well on screen.

[Darth Tater]

I'd love to see a film version of the story of Beren and Luthien myself, which was obviously his favorite tale (the gravestone where he and his wife are buried has those names after their own). As a matter of fact, I'd like to make the movie myself. Anybody got a few extra million dollars? ;)

[Gerbil]

Is there somewhere I can go to find a list of changes from the book that are known to date?
I'm new here so I don't want to simply start talking about stuff I'm ignorant of.

So far the two things I'm aware of are:

Arwen. Stupid jumped up little girl playing warrior.
Saruman's death on spikes from that old picture (although I dunno if this has been confirmed?).

My thoughts on both are:

Arwen - I can live with her at the fords (although her line from the trailer makes me cringe it's so bad), but where else will she get inserted? I was worried she would replace Eowyn as the slayer of the Nazgul lord (because she's bound to be in some of the major battles since she seems to want to model herself on Xena these days...), but checking the cast list there's an Eowyn and it doesn't make sense to include her if she doesn't have that part of the story, since it makes her a completely peripheral character (IE what Arwen was before).

Saruman - Hmmm I wonder if they think Saruman's death wasn't nasty enough for someone so evil? I do worry the scouring of the shire will be out. In filmic terms it's an anti-climax after the destruction of Sauron, although it works so well in the books because we've all taken the Hobbits and the Shire to our hearts so much.

Oh well, pass on rumours, I need to catch up!

[Michael Martinez]

You're running on some pretty old rumors, there. http://www.tolkienonline.com/ has become the official home for the non-official list of departures from the book. I think they have a link on the main page, now. Look for "Ancalagon". Ancalagon the Black maintains the list, which is quite lengthy.

[Gerbil]

I am indeed, and wanted to get up to date before diving in too much.
Thanks for the details - I found the pages and have just gone through them all.
I'm off to put my eyeballs back in their sockets after that lot.

Thanks :)