23992Re: [mythsoc] Smithsonian does The Hobbit
- Jan 3, 2013he did give the culler. from Mich.----- Original Message -----From: Jason FisherSent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 5:32 PMSubject: Re: [mythsoc] Smithsonian does The HobbitI think that maybe a Fair Use case could be made for such a trivial point. A lawsuit over this would actually be very interesting, don't you think, Doug?
From: Doug Kane <dougkane@...>
Sent: Thursday, January 3, 2013 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Smithsonian does The HobbitYes, the film mentions the color of the blue wizards, and the book does not. Technically, that is beyond their reach (and I suspect it may have been one of the things that Janet referred to when she said that they ignored some of her advice). But I seriously doubt that such a minor thing would be worth suing over.DougI was just reading the article and thinking a little bit about the question of what Peter Jackson can and cannot use. Here's an excerpt:Similarly, while Hugo Weaving’s elf lord of Rivendell, Elrond, recognizes that one of the swords recovered from the troll cave hails back to the goblin wars and once belonged to the king of Gondolin, an Elven city that fell to darkness, he fails to mention the king’s name, Turgon, and does not add that Turgon is actually his own great-grandfather. These details come from The Silmarillion and The Book of Lost Tales (published posthumously, in 1983 and 1984). “Elrond could have quite easily have said, ‘Hey, thanks for bringing that back, we wondered what came of that sword over the last 7,000 years,’ but he doesn’t,” Rateliff said.I think Peter Jackson could have said both that Turgon was the king of Gondolin and that Elrond was his great-grandson. This information is made clear in Appendix A of The Lord of the Rings. In section I (i), we read that "Idril Celebrindal was the daughter of Turgon, king of the hidden city of Gondolin", with a footnote pointing back to the passage in The Hobbit where the swords from Gondolin are discussed. That seems to give Jackson permission to use the name Turgon. In the same paragraph we learn, again just from The Lord of the Rings, that Turgon -> Idril -> Eärendil. A couple of paragraphs later, we learn that Eärendil -> Elrond. So both issues are perfectly within the film rights of The Lord of the Rings, aren't they?On the other hand, another excerpt:For instance, the mysterious blue wizards, who Gandalf briefly mentions to Bilbo in the movie, are identified by name only in Unfinished Tales, hence Gandalf conveniently “forgetting their names” to spare Jackson a potential lawsuit.Perhaps somebody can refresh my memory, but I'm pretty sure it is never said in The Lord of the Rings that the other two wizards' color is blue. I've only seen the film once. Did Gandalf give the color, or only mention that there were two other wizards? I seem to recall he gave the color too. The number would have been okay (there are a couple references to it in The Lord of the Rings), but the color should have been a bit outside Jackson's reach.Best,Jason
From: Doug Kane <dougkane@...>
Sent: Thursday, January 3, 2013 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Smithsonian does The HobbitWho is this "Rateliff" character they keep quoting?This just went up today, no doubt to celebrate Tolkien Day: a piece at Smithsonian.com about how Jackson wove together material from various sources to make his HOBBIT film. For those interested in such things, here's the link:
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1430 / Virus Database: 2637/5507 - Release Date: 01/03/13
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>