THE HOBBIT OFFICIALLY ANNOUNCED

[Rock-ola]

11-30-2012 06:15 PM
After sending out pre-order e-mails to buyers of The Wizard of Oz, Jersey Jack Pinball officially announces that their second game will be The Hobbit.

More...

 

[Isaac Sauvage]

does that imply that they outbid stern for the rights? if so, wow...

regardless, should be a pretty can't-miss sales item. i wouldn't mind breaking my real-life pinball dry spell to play that one.

 

[StevOz]

Crazy stuff that this even has copyright status..

George Allen & Unwin Ltd. of London published the first edition of The Hobbit on 21 September 1937

 

[Isaac Sauvage]

found this on WP, under "adaptations":

In 1969 (over 30 years after first publication), Tolkien sold the film and merchandising rights to The Hobbit to United Artists under an agreement stipulating a lump sum payment of £10,000[109][110] plus a 7.5% royalty after costs, payable to Allen & Unwin and the author.[111] In 1976 (three years after the author's death) United Artists sold the rights to Saul Zaentz Company, who trade as Tolkien Enterprises. Since then all "authorized" adaptations have been signed-off by Tolkien Enterprises. In 1997 Tolkien Enterprises licensed the film rights to Miramax, which assigned them in 1998 to New Line Cinema.[112] The heirs of Tolkien, including his son Christopher Tolkien, filed suit against New Line Cinema in February 2008 seeking payment of profits and to be "entitled to cancel... all future rights of New Line... to produce, distribute, and/or exploit future films based upon the Trilogy and/or the Films... and/or... films based on The Hobbit."[113][114]

and i'm just a layperson, but i would think that more than just rights to the hobbit would be concerned. other stuff would be all the movie tie-in rights... the actors' images and voices and all that. from the farsight video on their main page it sounded like there's a boatload of copyright licensing needed for the average table...

 

[StevOz]

I acknowledge what you're saying Ike, still I don't agree with it or most of what the law of the rich dictate in a so called democracy. The Hobbit is a fictional character, which doesn't need actors images/voices or shouldn't. With original input from dedicated artists to freely interpret the book, yes this is the point it was a text of words free to interpret by the reader, sadly this seems to be no longer the case.

 

[Isaac Sauvage]

the biggest thing that annoys me about modern audiences and the new tolkien movies is how so much of the audience takes them as 'the last word' on the subject. as in, no need to read the books, no need to see one of the earlier tolkien productions, no need to use your imagination. hollywood imagines everything for you and strives to omit ambiguities which might otherwise cause a customer to think... part of an economic pandemic that caters to childishness.

 

[sleepy]

And how often a movie has absolutely Nothing to do with the book on which it was allegedly based. In Name Only.

Dracula is an excellent example of that behavior. Even Coppola's "Authentic" version was shite. Nothing to do with the book or The Queen of England at all there.

 

[faralos]

How about all the misnomers referring to Frankenstein
when really it was his monster who did all that damage
and NOT the dear Dr Frankenstein himself
but we refer to the monster as Frankenstein when really
it is the Doctors name and NOT the monsters
so the book-to-movie title is wrong then since it refers to the beast
as Frankenstein when it really is the doc
oh well