J.R.R. Tolkien published The Hobbit through George Allen & Unwin on September 10, 1937. We Hobbit fans more-or-less neglected to note the passing of another anniversary.

Well, I neglected to note the passing.

September 10 in our calendar almost falls in line with September 25 in the Shire's calendar, so we could almost celebrate Bilbo and Frodo's birthday along with the anniversary of the book's publication.

Hobbit fandom is largely quiet these days as people wait to find out if Peter Jackson will indeed bring "The Hobbit" to the screen. In the meantime, should negotations with Jackson fail, don't be surprised to hear rumors of another negotiation for the rights to "The Lord of the Rings". Soon the fetters of the 10-year contractual moratorium will fall away.

And then what?

History teaches us that movie franchises tend to wait 20 years or more before being repackaged, although "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" doesn't seem to run low on pod people and cheap special effects. Who knows? Maybe now someone is working hard on a script that is more faithful to Tolkien than Jackson's was (which in some ways would be hard to do, and in other ways would be easy to do).

Tolkien's story was not well-suited to the Big Screen even in his own mind, but I've always wondered how people know that for sure. I mean, the first two Harry Potter books were faithfully adapted to the screen and those movies looked pretty good. In fact, I often question the validity of archaeology's insistence that every flat table-like structure with a few terra cotta dolls around it must have been some sort of altar.

If you were to bury many American homes today for 1,000 years and then dig them up, what would you make of the porcelain statues you'd find? Do we worship Precious Moments goddesses?

The assumption that a faithful adaptation of "The Lord of the Rings" cannot be made is based on arbitrary cinematic limits. Studios don't often commit to film trilogies. They certainly don't commit to anything longer than a trilogy. When people first heard Jackson might get to do the LoTR movies, many purists and semi-purists insisted that no fewer than six movies would work.

George Lucas has proven that the six-movie concept is doable, and next time around we should not have to endure a 16-year hiatus while the producer waits for technology to catch up to his imagination. There is no reason for why someone cannot start planning a six-film series today. We're already five movies into the 7-film Harry Potter franchise, as I recall.

But perhaps I'm only dreaming.

Although Tolkien has been mistaken for the father of modern fantasy many times (he neither revolutionized literary fantasy nor founded the genre we know by many names such as "adventure fantasy", "high fantasy", "epic fantasy", "heroic fantasy", etc.), he is in a way the father of the modern fantasy franchise. Had it not been for Tolkien, would Lucas have attempted "Star Wars"? Of course, Lucas had other inspirations.

But where we stand today is pivotal with respect to Tolkien cinemology. We could compromise and settle for a "Hobbit" movie or we could dig in and demand that someone improve upon success. For all their faults, innovations, and triumphs, Peter's movies left us both wanting more and wanting less. We know now that audiences will pay to see 6 movies. There is no longer a business reason to block a large film franchise. But the Saul Zaentz Company needs to decide where it wants to take the property.

That's really what it comes down to. A lot of people would argue that the games and collectibles inspired by the Jackson adaptation have not been played out. It could be they have another 5-7 years of life. In which case rolling out a new adaptation might seem premature.

And some of the deficiencies of the Jackson films were not Peter's fault. He was legally constrained NOT to use most of the available Tolkien material. What could Middle-earth have looked like had Peter been able to use more and invent less? His own imagination would have made the films unique but Peter would certainly have had many more options to choose from.

On the other hand it seems as though Christopher Tolkien's heart has been hardened even more against the idea of enabling yet more film adaptations. An authorized film adapation could certainly go a long way toward reconciling purists with the whole idea of bring Middle-earth to the big screen but Christopher Tolkien is the most stringent purist of all. I just don't see him ever approving of the idea.

And one must then wonder where that leaves The Hobbit. Such measures as could be taken to protect it from slipping into the public domain have been taken, and based on current copyright law we cannot hope to see The Hobbit reach public hands for many decades. The book will not only be venerable but will also be ancient by the time its text can be legally distributed without paying royalties to Tolkien's heirs.

The weight of intellectual property rights becomes a heavy burden upon society, which once was free to adapt old but not ancient works willfully and with zest. Now we live in a holding pattern, occasionally negotiating a usually dismal foray into some author's world. The lack of economic incentive for developing fictional worlds in cinema and other formats is now impeding our creativity.

The Hobbit has thus become symbolic of the very thing Tolkien resented: the machine, the repression of individuality and freedom of expression. Everything is controlled because of the commercial value of Tolkien's literary creation. Everything is Sauronized in the name of purism. Somewhere along the way, I think we picked up the wrong ring and began wearing it all too often.

Even so, with all such regret as this writer feels, happy birthday Hobbit. It has been great having you in my life. Here is to the next 70 years.