8

I know this question sounds either ignorant or sacrilegious but Peter Jackson clearly added a lot of material and characters that don't exist in the original Hobbit book, either from other Tolkien material or simply out of thin air.

Are there any plans to re-novelize the films the way they were actually made?

If not, what are the reasons? (Legal problems, fan-backlash, etc.)

Rand al'Thor
  • 134,408
  • 65
  • 607
  • 854
ThePopMachine
  • 59,504
  • 42
  • 247
  • 519
  • 18
    I can't imagine that the Tolkien estate would allow the Jacksonverse Hobbit/Lord of the Rings to be novelised, though I have no evidence to support that assumption. – David Thomas Dec 26 '14 at 16:58
  • 2
    @DavidThomas: I agree with the assumption, of course, but three books, not one == $$$$ – ThePopMachine Dec 26 '14 at 17:00
  • 20
    I'm fairly sure there's already a book version of The Hobbit. – Valorum Dec 26 '14 at 17:32
  • On one level, I can see the point - the movies aren't completely new add-ons; they do take a lot from other canon sources, so a new novelization can be seen as merging the other source materials to make a more accessible version... – Joe L. Dec 26 '14 at 17:53
  • @Richard thats a kids book, the films would make an awesome proper adult companion to the LotR books if done. – Moo Dec 26 '14 at 17:54
  • On the other hand, no translation ever quite captures the full... intent? spirit? flavor? of the original; I think this is true whether it's a translation from one language to another or from one time to another. Plus there's a lot of anti-corporate/industrial sentiment in Tolkien's work. I'm not so sure that a corporation can be trusted to allow that to come across. – Joe L. Dec 26 '14 at 18:00
  • 8
    I know this question sounds either ignorant or sacrilegious. You are wrong. It sounds both. Now seriously (and apart from the answer), it is not unheard that in the process of adaptation to film changes are made to the original narrative, but that those changes are enough to consider the result a different piece of art would be quite exceptional (and would require just than copy&paste of some characters from LoTR). – SJuan76 Dec 26 '14 at 18:01
  • 1
    There have been a few questions about what Peter Jackson can and can't do next, as well as a certain amount of complaints of people being negative, countered by enthusiasm for his work. Just be aware of this: your opinion doesn't matter much. There will be legal obstacles to this, because the LotR/Hobbit rights only permit certain adaptions. If Jackson isn't legally allowed do something, it doesn't matter how awesome you think it will be, he can't and won't do it. I don't know specifics of the deal, but I suspect that rewriting the original books is one of those things he can't do. –  Dec 26 '14 at 18:28
  • 4
    @SJuan76: Dude, that was totally uncalled for. I'm not going to read the books if they make them. I'm not advocating them getting written. I'm asking if there are plans, which would totally not surprise me given the commercial nature of Hollywood, as I stated in my previous comment. If not, it could be due to the potential reasons I gave -- which is why I'm legitimately asking the question. – ThePopMachine Dec 26 '14 at 20:01
  • 2
    @SJuan76: Are you seriously implying you don't think there would be a market for a standalone novel of Unexpected Journey, with descriptions of characters, objects, and fights as in the films and the additional characters? If so, you must be blinded by the sacrilege of the idea. Again, I'm not disagreeing; I'm saying I wouldn't be shocked by the milking power of Hollywood. – ThePopMachine Dec 26 '14 at 20:03
  • 2
    The LOTR movies are enjoyable in their own right, but they are derivative of Tolkein's work--decades of painstaking research, thought and work, creation of languages, poetry, an entire "history of the world," and more--Not the other way round. The movies do draw on additional source materials (the Silmarillion, for example) relating to the alternate world history that Tolkein created. Any adaptation of the films to books would, as far as I'm concerned, be the mere creation of derivative graphic novels, not a substantial contribution to language, culture or the world of LOTR. IMHO. ;-) – Craig Tullis Dec 26 '14 at 21:59
  • 1
    Don't know if it's possible or not... I just hope this will never ever happen. – Joel Dec 27 '14 at 00:20
  • The book based on the movie based on the book. Hmm... – Omegacron Dec 29 '14 at 16:23
  • 1
    What movies? Peter Jackson had the idea to film The Hobbit; too bad the project never hapened. – J. C. Salomon Dec 30 '14 at 20:04
  • 1
    The History Channel made a novelization of their The Bible miniseries, even though most people already own a copy of the original book and there are organizations that will give you a copy for free. Besides the rights issues, this doesn't seem any weirder or crazier than that. – KSmarts Dec 30 '14 at 21:42
  • @Omegacron What's next, a video game based on a card game based on a video game? – KSmarts Dec 30 '14 at 21:44
  • @KSmarts - lol, I had no idea that existed. Doesn't surprise me, though. – Omegacron Dec 30 '14 at 22:08
  • I agree. It would be sacrilegious to produce a novel based on the movies. It is already a movie based on a book! There is already enough argument about what is canon and what isn't. As far as i am concerned; the published existing novels are the final point of reference whereas the movies are mere novelty. Otherwise we would be arguing about whether the son of Arathorn's name is Strider or Trotter! – Omar Devon Little Jan 01 '15 at 02:41
  • 1
    @Richard: Why did you edit the question to create a grammatical issue?! – ThePopMachine Jan 01 '15 at 15:48
  • @ThePopMachine - Oops. A quick edit and we're back in business. – Valorum Jan 01 '15 at 15:53
  • I doubt the Tolkien estate would allow it. Also, doing that would be a tacit admission that Peter Jackson created a separate work, not the true "Hobbit" after all. Not that that would stop him, but I'd love to challenge him with that one. (Note: I do enjoy the movies he made; I just hate some of the unnecessary changes that were made--e.g., Azog.) – peyre Sep 17 '15 at 03:30

1 Answers1

7

From Wikipedia:

"In November 2012, the Tolkien Estate, trustee and publishers sued Middle-earth Enterprises (in addition to Warner Brothers and New Line Cinema) for infringing Tolkien's copyrights by producing casino and video games using his characters. The original license to Tolkien's works was limited to the right to sell "tangible" products such as "figurines, tableware, stationery items, clothing, and the like", but did not cover "electronic or digital rights, rights in media yet to be devised or other intangibles such as rights in services".[10] Tolkien's estate claimed that the defendants' actions had caused "irreparable harm to Tolkien's legacy"."

Details in this article:

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/nov/20/tolkien-estate-sues-hobbit-producers

This makes it clear that the rights for the film and limited derivative products only were sold by Tolkien and that the estate won't allow more than that.

Which is really good in my opinion.

Joel
  • 3,042
  • 1
  • 20
  • 17
  • 2
    My guess is that for the right money, they'd be willing to license almost anything, as long as it was "done tastefully" (e.g. the more distasteful, the more money required). – Valorum Dec 27 '14 at 16:27
  • 3
    Yes, it could be, even though I'm not so sure about that. But, it could be argued that when Christopher Tolkien dies, things may change. Christopher Tolkien is more than estate, he was a big part of the creation of the books, by his critics and maps drawing while his father was alive and after his death, by his editing of unpublished work, he became a kind of author himself. He has a strong sense of belonging... But he's quite old now, is own estate may not be that sensible. – Joel Dec 27 '14 at 16:45
  • 1
    You'd be astounded what horrors people are willing to unleash upon the world when Hollywood execs turn up with a dumper-truck full of cash; http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1155076/ / http://deadline.com/2014/03/ghostbusters-movie-going-forward-without-ivan-reitman-sony-701057/ – Valorum Dec 27 '14 at 17:09
  • lol... no, I wouldn't be, that's why I agree with you that it could be. But I still hold some respect and confidence in Christopher Tolkien. – Joel Dec 27 '14 at 17:19