Quote:
Anyways, let's get back to he topic. I think that Lord of the Rings is a New Zealand production, because the production company Wingnut Films is based there. Or we could use the UK, because the book was written there, and they actually hold the copyright. The family of J. R. R. Tolkien.

Quote:
Oh, is it really????????
Because the family of J. R. R. Tolkien does hold the copyright. There wouldn't be any movie if they hadn't allowed these studios to make them.

Quote:
Quoting pompel9:

Quote:
Can you please provide the URL where you found this information. Because I have heard that it was the son of J. R. R. Tolkien who sold the rights to these movies.

From what I can tell, the movie rights were, and still are, owned by Saul Zaents.  He simply gave Jackson and New Line the license to make them.  Here are some links though.

Wikipedia Tolkien bio - Works inspired by Tolkien section: He went on to criticize the script scene by scene ("yet one more scene of screams and rather meaningless slashings"). But Tolkien was in principle open to the idea of a movie adaptation. He sold the film, stage and merchandise rights of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings to United Artists in 1968, while, guided by scepticism towards future productions, he forbade that Disney should ever be involved:

Wikipedia Peter Jackson bio - LotR section: Jackson earned the rights to a film adaptation of J. R. R. Tolkien's novel in 1997 from Saul Zaentz.  Zaentz is an American film producer and former record company executive...not related to Tolkien.

Wikipedia The Lord of the Rings film trilogy: Peter Jackson first read the book as an 18-year-old, after seeing Ralph Bakshi's 1978 animated film version. Jackson and his wife, Fran Walsh, began enquiries about the Lord of the Rings rights in 1995 and struck a deal with copyright holder Saul Zaentz and Miramax Films in January 1997 after production stalled on their King Kong remake.

Quote:
Quoting pompel9:

Quote:
On the other hand if you look closely on the page to the third link, on the top of the page it says: Country  New Zealand/United States.
Why do you think New Zealand is listed first?

Alphabetical?

Quote:
Hi Rifter,
I don't think you get my point. No one is denying that New Line own the rights to LoTR, and as far as I can tell, no one ever has.
But the point is that we've been told by Gerri that CoO follows the production company, and that means something completely different to rights holder. That's what the problem is, some people don't realise that.
You said yourself that WingNut "were HIRED by New Line to do a job" and that job was to produce the LoTR trilogy, making THEM the production company, not New Line.

Quote:
No, that isn't how it works.  When a contractor builds a house, and hires carpenters, plumbers, laborers, etc., who actually do the physical job of building that house, he doesn't give up his right to say "I built this house."  New Line IS a production company in one aspect of what it does, and without New Line ponying up the bucks, Peter Jackson would still be relatively unknown.

Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
I could be wrong... but it sounds like you are saying if the movie itself takes place in for example the UK... then the CoO should be UK?

If that is the case... I very much disagree... just because a movie is about a certain country don't mean the Country of Origin is of the country the movie plot is set in.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Otherwise "The Third Man" would get lost. Nevermind genre films like sci-fi, that defy location.

I've used broad examples, but I think about who had the initial idea and who wrote it. I briefly mentioned "United 93". American tragedy, story, actors, but recently voted Best British Film in Empire magazine, because it was a British director and writer. 

For me, origin is where it was conceived, not set. And certainly not filmed.