Because the rights were already sold long before the LOTR movies.

"The Silmarillion’s really simple," Jackson said. "J.R.R. Tolkien sold the film rights to The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings in the 1960s. The Silmarillion wasn’t written yet. It wasn’t even written in his lifetime. It was written by him and, partly, his son finished it after his death and published it after the professor had died. So, the film rights are with them, and the estate doesn’t have any interest in discussing film rights with anybody. So that’s the situation there. They’re not as untangled as The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit."
 
Last edited:
That said, you think PJ would ever even attempt to make the Sil? I've heard it couldn't be done in film form. Is there even an audience for that material? I couldn't make it past page 2 when I tried to read it several years ago. I can't imagine the general movie-going audience being able to grasp it.

That makes me feel better. ;) I gave up at about the same spot.

I agree that the general movie-going public wouldn't be able to grasp a Silmarilion adaptation, even if it could be translated into film form. I think it would be easy to take a few of the stories and make fan-fiction out of them, essentially, but it wouldn't have the big name appeal of a book everyone has read. No fan dedicated enough to read the Sil would want to watch a fan-fiction movie, and no causal moviegoers would be interested, so I'd say it wouldn't work. xD
 
Alot of what makes the Sil a chore though, is the information, descriptions and stuff, which would not be as much as a problem in film form, if you follow me.
 
Hah, good luck with that! (unfortunately)

Oh it could be Christian. But it would be cheap and low budget, not to mention bad acting and no time at the box office.

I'm not saying Christian-themed films can't work with the general public. However, Christian-themed films just don't have the same appeal as secular-driven films do. The only exception I can think of in modern times would be the first Narnia film. Which in all honesty, wasn't plugged as a Christian movie (though without realizing it, the filmmakers added in MORE Christianity than the book called for) except by those groups that saw the allegory for what it was. Most people just saw it as a fantasy film. In fact, a Christian friend of mine, at the time, never even realized the Christian themes in Narnia. I had to sit and explain them to her. But LWW isn't what I'd call "Christian-themed". It's only really 'Christian-themed' because of my perspective on the story (which is I think how Lewis intended it to be read).

I could understand the estate not letting go of the Sil. The last two Hobbit films I think deviated so much from the book that they are probably glad they haven't relinquished the rights.
 
Alot of what makes the Sil a chore though, is the information, descriptions and stuff, which would not be as much as a problem in film form, if you follow me.

[sorry in advance for the double post]

I do. Film requires you to re structure and condense information. And since descriptions are often unnecessary in film (because of the visuals you have at your disposal) then it would declutter the story quite a bit. I think it's probably what contributed to LotR's success; PJ used great visuals which helped to drive the story and took away the need for endless exposition.
 
Apparently the only Tolkien family member who liked the LotR films is Christopher Tolkien's oldest son, Simon. But I'm not sure how he feels about The Hobbit.
 
Thank you for posting that link! It is the first and only "Extended Hobbit" scene I have ever watched. I never bought the DVD's because I was so disappointed with Andrew Adamson's, I mean Peter Jackson's overly-revised movies; but that extra scene still was entertaining to watch.
 
I haven't read any of the books, Hobbit or LOTR and I've seen all five movies at least once. I'm indifferent as to whether or not I'll go see the Battle of the Five Armies. If I'm visiting friends out of state at the time and they want to see it, I may agree to go. It sounds like an unfortunate change in title.
 
I want to apologize to you for that argument we had a while back about the LOTR EE's vs. TE's, for I have discovered that there is some stuff (not a whole lote, but still) in the TE's not in the EE's! so they both work as different versions for what "mood" you are in
 
I want to apologize to you for that argument we had a while back about the LOTR EE's vs. TE's, for I have discovered that there is some stuff (not a whole lote, but still) in the TE's not in the EE's! so they both work as different versions for what "mood" you are in

Considering I don't even remember that argument, your apology is accepted. :)

I finally broke down and re-bought the theatrical editions (hey, Target had each one for $5!) after giving them to my sister a while back (she and my parents have this silly notion that two versions of the same movies is excessive). I haven't watched the trilogy yet, but I feel as if watching the theatricals makes me miss out on the story more so than it used to. I think it's because I'm so used to watching the EE's that watching the regular ones contributes to a sense of loss. I like both versions though; I should have had my mom watch the regular versions instead of the EE's because she found them way too long.
 
New posters:

1908437_734111159957825_8747201947756068004_n.jpg


10320268_734614616574146_1408468705604781922_n.jpg


10606500_735124853189789_8071974281820697770_n.jpg


10672184_735646809804260_7846569487888348570_n.jpg
 
I just think it's completely unearthly that Cate Blanchett hasn't aged a single day since 1999. I mean, really. What kind of water is she drinking?!

(Yes, I know that poster was likely enhanced. But the woman doesn't seem to have aged at all since LotR.)
 
Ha, I've been rewatching the second Hobbit movie and was noticing how Orlando Bloom has aged. He's playing a meaner Legolas, so it works, but he doesn't look like a college kid anymore.
 
Back
Top