|Re: CT 2012 French Language Article/Interview in Le Monde|
Subject: Re: CT 2012 French Language Article/Interview in Le Monde
by Findegil on 2012/7/12 18:54:24
In terms of the movie tie-in covers, I think The Tolkien Estate probably doesn't have a great deal of leverage here. I would think it's HarperCollins who have (historically & presently) pushed the movie covers. Are the Estate really going to start arguing with their publisher?; probably not recommended. Plus, it looks from papers in the public domain that both GA&U and Tolkien had certain "rights" to future movie adaptations i.e. cuts of profits (--although never artistic interference.) HarperCollins presumably can exercise these rights independent of the Estate i.e. arrange movie covers.
We have every reason to believe that the Estate has indeed exercised influence on HarperCollins to minimize the effect that Stu refers to, of 'cementing a relationship between the books and the films'. Naturally, the publishers of Tolkien's works want to capitalize on the publicity surrounding the Jackson films; and although members of the Estate may dislike the film adaptations, like Tolkien himself in his day, they recognize that his publishers have a stake in his works too. But a publisher needs to keep in the good graces of a copyright holder who is also the source, from time to time, of other material to publish; so although HarperCollins, at least for their own editions, have issued film tie-in editions of Tolkien's works, the covers always have been subdued, with no images of the principal actors except in silhouette -- instead, Black Riders, towers, a wide shot of an indistinct army, the Ring. Less control is evidently possible, however, for foreign, sub-licensed editions -- in America, those from Ballantine Books especially tend to be plastered with close-ups of Elijah Wood et al. -- or for "making of"-type books about the films.
Wayne & Christina