Slashdot Log In
LoTR Fan Film — The Hunt For Gollum
Posted by
timothy
on Thu Apr 30, 2009 06:57 PM
from the is-gollum-even-in-season? dept.
from the is-gollum-even-in-season? dept.
stevedcc writes "This weekend sees the release of The Hunt for Gollum, a Lord of the Rings fan-film. It'll be available on the web for free. The BBC are running an article about the making of the film, with a budget of £3,000 (spent mostly on costumes and make-up). There were 160 contributors involved, many over the internet." I hope it lives up to the trailer (linked from the BBC story); the finished film is approximately 40 minutes.
memoryhole supplies links to YouTube for both the full trailer and a second trailer. Reader jowifi adds a link to NPR's story on the film, writing, "NPR discussed the legality of this type of creation with EFF lawyer Fred Von Lohman, who said it's not clear if such a production violates the copyright for Tolkien's work."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Skeptical (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The cool thing about fan films and fan series is that you don't have to like them or even watch them if you don't wish.
Re:Skeptical (Score:5, Insightful)
The cool thing about fan films and fan series is that you don't have to like them or even watch them if you don't wish.
As opposed to big budget Hollywood films where you better watch 'em, and you better like 'em, or else some guy comes for your knee caps?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Skeptical (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm a bit skeptical of the movie. I guess the reason I loved the movie series was the basis on the books (given it wasn't 100% accurately followed). With no great input from J.R.R., it will be interesting to see what direction this goes in.
Do you realize the Peter Jackson movies were made without input from JRR, as he has been dead for some time?
Hopefully the fan films will be made by people who have actually read the books they are translating to film.
I read the trilogy + pretty much everything released by Tolkien's estate through the years. I am still trying to figure out what books the Peter Jackson movies were based on.
Parent
Re:Skeptical (Score:4, Informative)
And thus you expose your ignorance. /sarcasm
The Lord of the Rings was not a trilogy. That is all.
(Oh, and I don't have any trouble seeing what Jackson's films were based on. Perhaps you need glasses?)
Parent
Re:Skeptical (Score:5, Funny)
Just to let you know, I read your post in comic book guy's voice.
Parent
Re:Skeptical (Score:4, Funny)
Impossible. Comic Book Guy's voice does not implement /sarcasm.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
And what's all this about "LoTR was not a trilogy"? I can hear a whooshing sound but I'm not sure what it is.
Re:Skeptical (Score:5, Funny)
Worst. Thread. Ever.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Skeptical (Score:5, Informative)
This movie is based on a few lines in the appendix of LOTR that discuss Gandalf and Aragorn pursuing Gollum between the events of The Hobbit and Fellowship of the Ring. That's much less to go on than a whole narrative hundreds of pages long.
Doesn't mean it's going to be bad, just means that they don't have as much canon to work with.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Very true...
I've actually been waiting for this to come out for quite some time - one of my friends did a bunch of the promotional stuff for them - the amazingly talented Jeff Hayes [plasmafiregraphics.com] (check his "One Sheet Design" pages), whom I work with on Star Trek New Voyages [startreknewvoyages.com]. Hope this episode is as well done as his promotional graphics for it.
Re:Skeptical (Score:5, Informative)
There's more detail on the hunt for gollum in Unfinished Tales [wikipedia.org]. Still not a lot, to be honest.
The most interesting thing is the explanation of how Gollum escapes from Thranduil. Basically, Sauron had been unable to completely break Gollum - perhaps because of Gollum's hobbit heritage. So Sauron had let Gollum go, in the hope that Gollum would find his way to the Shire or Baggins - both names Sauron had got out of him, but both things Gollum didn't know the location of. So Sauron let Gollum go, but kept an eye on him.
Then Aragorn captured Gollum, just outside Mordor. Now, Sauron knew (from Gollum) that the One had been found, but he did not realise anyone else knew this. So he was now worried that Gollum's new captors would discover this information, and thus Sauron would lose an advantage. Hence he arranged for an orc-raid to capture or kill Gollum. However, Gollum escaped. There were also Nazgul in the area, searching for the Shire in the guise of black riders, so in terror of the orcs and the black riders, Gollum hid in Moria./p.
Parent
Re:Skeptical (Score:5, Funny)
... but kept an eye on him.
That's Eye, you insensitive clod!
Parent
Release date (Score:5, Informative)
Release date is May 3 2009 at 16:00 GMT.
Seems like Tolkien is playing nice. (Score:5, Insightful)
Looks like tim is trolling just a bit.
Though, in general, LotR should be public domain. It's a definite part of our cultural heritage, and these sort of copyright issues are about as insulting as someone claiming copyright on the Shakespeare Canon.
Re:Seems like Tolkien is playing nice. (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Though, in general, LotR should be public domain.
It is not a matter of opinion. Copyright is Life + 70 in the USA. Tolkien passed in 1973. In 2043, his work will enter public domain.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It is a part of our cultural heritage only because Tolkien chose to create it and to publish it --- on his own terms.
Re: (Score:2)
He's also been dead for decades.
Re:Seems like Tolkien is playing nice. (Score:5, Interesting)
Then again, its position as a major part of our cultural heritage is in quite some part because pirate publishers in the US printed it without Tolkien's permission, following a tradition of American respect for copyrights going back at least to Dickens; the first paperback edition was entirely unauthorised. And cheap.
As a result it became hugely popular over there in the 1960s - the reason for a generation of hippie children called things like Pippin Galadriel Moonchild, and graffiti all over the place saying FRODO LIVES. Without that it would likely be a much more obscure work to this day.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Seems like Tolkien is playing nice. (Score:5, Interesting)
Indeed. When Tolkein set about writing LotR his specific aim was to write an english folklore of our very own, since what we had was very disjointed compared to the strength of norse and roman myths. I think he would find the idea of one company 'owning' his work to be totally against the central idea behind his work. Myths are there to be told and retold.
Unfortunately, we can't ask him as he has been dead 36 years now. The idea that anyone might own the sole rights to something written by a man long dead is definitely a strange one to get your head around.
Parent
Re:Seems like Tolkien is playing nice. (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Seems like Tolkien is playing nice. (Score:4, Insightful)
Why exactly should he be able to keep it from being used as the name of a hydrofoil?
"I was going to buy a copy of Lord of the Rings to read, but I got this cool hydrofoil called Shadowfax, so now I don't need to."
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Was he using the name in commerce as a source identifier for goods and services? No? Then it's not a trademark. And even if it was, he couldn't assert it against a boat unless he was selling Shadowfax-branded boats. Trademark doesn't give you "ownership" of a name or word. It gives you the right to prevent others from using it as a confusingly-similar source identifier for goods and/or services.
Bottom line, there's pretty much nothing Tolkein could do to stop somebody from naming his hydrofoil "Shadowf
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Wasn't a lot of Tolkein's work very similar to those Norse legends you mentioned ?
[citation not available, this is Slashdot, heresay will suffice]
Re:Seems like Tolkien is playing nice. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Seems like Tolkien is playing nice. (Score:5, Interesting)
As a Cornishman, I can definitely say you're wrong there! :)
At least geographically and culturally, large bits of Middle Earth appear to spring directly from Britain. The Shire, for example, well, it IS the Westcountry.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Shakespeare's work is hundreds of years old, Tolkien's is not. I believe that copyright on a particular work should expire upon an author's death (or very shortly thereafter... 7 rather than 70 years) but my beliefs are completely irrelevant. Tolkien's work is still copyrighted under current law.
Under your logic, it could be argued that pretty much any work with a household name would fall into the public domain (The Simpsons, Harry Potter, Windows XP...)
Say what? (Score:5, Insightful)
"NPR discussed the legality of this type of creation with EFF lawyer Fred Von Lohman, who said it's not clear if such a production violates the copyright for Tolkien's work."
It's as clear as a pane of glass.
The character is recognizably Tolkien's creation.
The universe he inhabits. The voices. The dialog. The languages.
The maps. The character designs.
The story.
The film can't honestly be described as anything other than a derivative work.
Not so clear. (Score:4, Insightful)
The character is recognizably Tolkien's creation.
...The character designs.
The universe he inhabits. The voices. The languages.
The film can't honestly be described as anything other than a derivative work.
None of those things are covered by copyright, and thus cannot be a derivative work. Some of them could be covered by trademark, but that is an entirely different matter.
The dialog. The maps. The story.
These are covered by copyright, but they are not being used (maybe the maps are I don't know). It is a fan-flick: a new story with new dialog based on the characters and word created by Tolkien.
Parent
Re:Not so clear. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Not so clear. (Score:4, Insightful)
Well that shouldn't be too hard. According to New Line Cinema, none of the original movies made a profit either.
Parent
Re:Not so clear. (Score:5, Informative)
Try using google, if nothing else:
Protection of Fictional Characters [publaw.com]
How can I tell if a character I have used is copyright protected? [chillingeffects.org]
And yes, aspects of them can be trademarked, too.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Ya, it's a land grab. Again. And that's the problem with copyright law.
Re: (Score:2)
Kudos, you have a whole pharmacy of pills next to your name: Foe, Fan, Friend of Friend, Foe of Friend. I haven't seen that particular combination before.
On topic: it was Disney pushing for copyright extensions to keep mickey mouse (a character) under copyright. So characters are most definitely under copyright/trademark protection.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Say what? (Score:5, Interesting)
ACTUALLY...
It is true that fictional characters, places, etc. are protected by copyright.
http://www.publaw.com/fiction.html [publaw.com]
HOWEVER,
Many foreign works briefly fell into the public domain here in the US.
Congress attempted to "correct" that problem by putting all those works *back* under copyright with a law in 1994.
A federal court of appeal recently ruled that this law violated the first amendment.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/court-congress-cant-put-public-domain-back-into-copyright.ars [arstechnica.com]
The Lord of The Rings is one of those foreign works (Tolkien is English).
So.... yeah. Not so clear, actually.
LOTR may be public domain, in which case these fan-fiction authors could tell everyone to *screw* and proceed to make all the profit they want.
I'm assuming that the first amendment case will go to the SCOTUS..
Parent
It is clear (Score:5, Insightful)
Than won't Hollywood and the RIAA be in a bind.
Re:It is clear (Score:4, Funny)
If YouTube is any indication, Hollywood will be safe for years to come.
Parent
Re:It is clear (Score:4, Interesting)
And if "Dude, Where's My Car?" is any indication, Hollywood is screwed.
That is actually why Hollywood is screwed. Their idea of how to make films to fill in all the gaps involve the like of "Dude, Where's My Car." The thing is - a reasonably talented YouTube hack could probably do something just as good - even better. For less. And get the full rewards. With no Studio cut.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Than won't Hollywood and the RIAA be in a bind.
That will be when they unleash the Nazgul upon the world of men.
Re: (Score:2)
No, not really. It takes a lot more than computers and good cameras to make even a mediocre film.
Conversely, there have always been good films that never had a Hollywood or MPAA logo on them.
Re: (Score:2)
They can save some money on effects... (Score:3, Funny)
... if they hire Lindsay Lohan. [wwtdd.com]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Cool, I'll bet I can turn you into the next big Fark meme: http://img2.imageshack.us/img2/1598/sd3v.jpg [imageshack.us]