kedaha
1841
Exactly. Movies are usually far shorter because
- They cut content
&
- They can show things instead of having to describe them
I believe the LotR movies ended up being around 35% of the time it would have taken the read the book.
5.2 hours to read a book seems crazy short to me when I put it in the context of a videogame. I guess I’ve never thought about it.
Film accounting is notorious for being doctored beyond all recognition.
Hopefully money was paid up front to the Tolkien estate for the Hobbit Trilogy.
I’m sure many more Tolkien books were sold as a result of the movies, so it’s hard for me to feel too bad. It’s hard to believe the Tolkien estate signed a contract that would allow the studios to wiggle free of any payment at all.
kedaha
1848
It’s far more common than you would think Tim, a quick google will bring up countless high profile examples of Music/Movie companies using creative accounting to deny paying people a share of the ‘profits’.
It’s so well known that it’s common wisdom that you never ask for a share of the net, only of the gross. Because invariably they’ll find a way to make the “net” zero no matter what the real numbers are.
I’ve been on the receiving end of this three times in software development. Twice developing business software, once for game software, I was told I’d get a share of the net profit, and the net profit was always zero. Time #1 I didn’t know any better, time #2 I was desperate for any paying job so I accepted even though I knew what to expect, time #3 I joined a company that had an existing profit-sharing plan in place. In case #3 - New World - I expected it to come to nothing, as so was not disappointed when we learned that Heroes III was not profitable according to 3DO.
“Forget about the net. The net is fantasy!” - Well known Hollywood business maven Dot Warner.
I worded my response poorly, but this is exactly what I’m trying to express. I agree completely with what you’re saying.
How do the lawyers that look these deals over get to yes? Do they honestly not know this will happen. I would expect they’d say something like, “This is a nice clause in the contract, but we’ll need X bazillion dollars up front for the use of our IP.” I’m assuming this is actually what happened, and now the Tolkien estate is playing to public opinion to get more money or some other advantage?
Ah! Enlightenment comes with more forum reading. :)
I signed a similar contract but had a lawyer look it over, and he told me what to expect.
Djscman
1853
Wasn’t that her contemporary studio exec Dexter Douglas? (http://youtu.be/bHL91HQzhuc) But it’s still great advice!
Scuzz
1854
The Hobbitt isn’t necessarily great literature but there can be no denying that Jackson took a short story about an adventure and the personal growth of Bilbo Baggins and turned it into something almost unrecognizable.
For the better.
Now it is more serious with more action. It feels more like the trilogy.
There is a reason everyone likes the trilogy a lot more.
They added a lot of not-in-the-Hobbit-book stuff into the movies that changes the feel. Leaving aside the totally unnecessary rabbit-sleds and hawt-elves-and-dwarfs, some of it is canon while changing the feel of the story quite a bit, like the whole story thread about confronting the Necromancer. That’s pretty serious stuff that doesn’t fit into the light-hearted Hobbit feel, but did happen in the same general time-frame in Tolkien’s world.
Scuzz
1857
Well, we can agree to disagree. Maybe if it was called “Jackson’s” Hobbit it might be more acceptable, and more truthful, as he has made up probably 40% of the movie.
Sarkus
1858
Christopher Tolkien is 90. I don’t know who is going to control the literature empire after his death, but at least one of his sons famously made a cameo in the LOTR trilogy and presumably has differing views about the degree to which the “franchise” needs to be protected. Other younger members of the family may have similar views.
Yes, back when JRR Tolkien sold those movie rights. Otherwise the rules of that contract apply just like they did to the LOTR trilogy, and eventually the estate did (IIRC) get some decent amount of money from those.
Yeah, this is kind of my feeling on this every time I read another Christopher Tolkien rant. In the long run tons of his licensed stuff sold and people who otherwise might never have bought the books did buy them. He acts like its all been negative. I suspect his accountant would disagree with that.
Who is this “everyone” you’re talking about? Although the movies are enjoyable on a certain level, I think Jackson ruined The Hobbit, using it merely as an excuse to create another series of action-packed movies set in Middle Earth. It’s not what the book should be about, and I’d rather he called his trilogy “Peter Jackson Does Middle Earth Again” or something rather than destroy what could have been a small, personal movie about the struggles of a simple hobbit burglar on a journey of self-discovery. I wouldn’t have expected Jackson to follow the text verbatim, and including some of the background that Tolkien later created seems sensible, but instead he’s turned it into Lord of the Rings 2: Ring Harder. The last straw for me was changing the title of the final movie from “There and Back Again” to “Battle of the Five Armies”. That really sums it all up.
Having said that, I will watch the final installment and enjoy it as much as I can (mostly for more Smaug), but I’ll still want to see the book done properly in the future.
Not me, certainly. I paid to see the first in theaters, but that was the end. The second I borrowed from a friend and I anticipate doing the same with the third to see the few cool moments embedded in a matrix of overblown dreck.
