I think it would be a shame for them to dispose of the intricately and masterfully crafted weapons and costumes from LOTR. PLUS It'd be something I would SO love to see if I go to New Zealand one day. They are just pissed off cause they said the movies couldn't be done and Peter Jackson and the cast and crew have proved them wrong a hundred times over. AND Royd Tolkien, Professor Tolkien's great-grandson and Christopher Tolkien's grandson is actually IN "The Return of the King" as a Gondorian soldier!
Andrew
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I hate people. The movies rock. They just plain and simple rock. The estate should be proud of what's being done with JRR's work.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
EXACTLY! And why should they care if there is an exhibit displaying swords, armor and costumes from the films - of which they are receiving a cut from!?! PLUS it continues promoting Tolkien and thus more books are sold. Or movies are bought/watched which means more bucks for them. If it was a bad adaptation - then maybe they would have some basis for their 'no-go' for the exhibit, but they should be proud at what has been created!
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I'm going to take a stab at this.
Twenty years ago, you read the books. "Man, what did you think of that part where [insert scene from book]?"
Twenty years from now, you watch the movies. "Man, what did you think of that part where [insert scene from book]."
The problem is that in twenty years, the answer will be: "That wasn't in the movie!"
Maybe the Tolkien estate is a little pissed at itself for having sold the film rights. Don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed the films, but maybe ... just maybe ... not everything should be done as a movie, and maybe the Tolkien estate regrets having allowed the books be turned into films.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
But the books have already been made into films. Granted, not on this scale or in any version that will endure as long as these films will, but they've already gone down that road.
My rather cynical view is that they're being pissy because someone else managed to actually do something amazing with the story while all the estate has done is sit on it and say "Hi, I'm related to JRR Tolkien."
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Too late for that - considering they already let the cat out of the bag in the seventies with the Ralph Bashki film.
The idea of the exhibit is to display props etc from the MOVIES.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
...they're being pissy because someone else managed to actually do something amazing with the story while all the estate has done is sit on it and say "Hi, I'm related to JRR Tolkien."
Well, that, and because they feel Jackson committed literary rape to make the films a success, while Bakshi's version was closer to the story but ended up being utter shite. I'd wager there's some lingering resentment over that.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
I can understand how it would feel wrong for the estate to have someone showcase the elvish armor and swords in that museum and put a sign next to them, basically saying "THIS IS WHAT ELVES WORE DURING THE WAR OF THE LAST ALLIANCE", and in this way endorse the creative liberties that should be kept within the framework of the movies alone.
I would of course like the props to remain, but I also think it's wrong to canonize gear belonging to an interpretation of the books.
I don't agree at all with the weird leaf-armor and Katana-like swords, I wish they'd have stuck with the medieval theme.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Well, it's really no different than publishing the scads of books and calendars full of artistic interpretations of the stories. "This book is what a bunch of artists think the world of Middle Earth looks like." "This museum is what a bunch of artists think the world of Middle Earth looks like."
Same, same.
If they feel Jackson did a crap job of interpreting the books, thaz kew. But the artistry involved in making the movies and the props is no less significant and it deserves to be preserved. He should just open the "Films That Peter Jackson Has Made Containing the Words 'Lord' and 'Rings' in Them Museum of Art" and side step the liscensing issue.
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
I'm sure it comes down to cash. Perhaps even something seemingly unrelated like how much money the estate gets for the Hobbit film or merchandise....
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
As I understand it, the film rights sold for diddily. I feel it's likely just a money-ploy by the Tolkein estate. I think maybe they ought to just open a Weta-Workshop/Wingut Films Museum and display all those incredible pieces as fine examples of carefully crafted props and just screw the Tolkein estate if they're going to be all stick-in-the-mud greedy about it. The movies are a separate entity from the books, and certainly deserve to be celebrated as the monumental achievement they are. Chris Tolkein can take a piss.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
If this was greenlighted tomorrow, we still would have to wait four or five years for The Hobbit and who knows is Ian McKellen could be Gandalf that far in the future? He's no spring chicken, and I cant imagine anyone else doing as good a job of it.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I think I read on Ian McKellen's site that he's all for playing the Grey Pilgrim again. Although I think he believes a mini-series would be a more suitable format for faithfully adapting the book. I tend to agree.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I'd be all for a Hobbit mini-series, as long as it was done with movie-quality effects and story telling. I don't want to see an NBC movie of the week-quality Hobbit.
But you're right... it'll be quite a few years until we get it, one way or the other. And I think Iam Hom has said he's not interested in being Bilbo, which will be hard for me to get past.
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
I'm not denying that there could be a motive in all this for more money, but I think there are some other possibilities too. Without trying to deconstruct the actions of the estate and the museum's promoters, I will simply make the comment that perhaps there might be a parallel between the motives of Christopher Tolkein and Bill Watterson when asked a million times to expand Calvin & Hobbes beyond the comic strip. I'll leave my comment that that.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
What did Watterson say? I never heard this. Calvin and Hobbes wouldn't work as a televised cartoon or a novel or any other format I can imagine at the moment, IMO. Is that what he was saying? If so, you'd think Tolkein would have the good sense to know when he'd been proven wrong.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)