Christopher Tolkien dead at 95

[famicommander]

https://www.cbr.com/christopher-tolkien-dies-at-95/

 

[evil wasabi]

https://www.cbr.com/christopher-tolkien-dies-at-95/

It took a village to make the middle earth universe.

I wonder at what point in the writing process that guys like Martin or Tolkien or Morecock decided to design their universes and archetypes. Same for King, whose work revolves around the towns of Derry, Castlerock, Haven, and Salem’s Lot.

 

[Late]

RIP, he was right, the movies are terrible. Didn't know there'll be a tv series, it'll probably be even worse.

 

[SML]

RIP to the author of the Silmarillion, etc.

 

[famicommander]

RIP, he was right, the movies are terrible. Didn't know there'll be a tv series, it'll probably be even worse.

The LOTR trilogy is fantastic. Especially the extended editions.

Hobbit movies I could do without but LOTR is about the best book to film adaptation I can think of.

 

[GutsDozer]

Hell of a full life. RIP

 

[F4U57]

RIP.

The Tolkein legacy is monumental.

 

[Taiso]

To Wasabi's point about writers and crafting stories, Tolkien initially started with creating the language and the story rose out of that. He built cultures and history and mythology around the languages he created for his ME stories. So I rather believe that while he probably altered course a couple of times in the crafting of LotR, I'd have to believe the framework was always there.

With Moorcock, I think it varies form character to character. Stormbringer was the first thing he ever wrote for the character and it was the 'final story' in that character's arc. Everything that came after happened before, and it was wildly inconsistent. the novel Elric of Melnibone was clearly intended, as an origin story, to give some form and consistency to what he'd written to that point, and it stands as a pretty solid prequel (as prequels go). Moorcock was probably more concerned with ideas rather than narrative construction, as it regarded his most famous creation. But as much as I am a fan of the man's work, I've never read that much about his thoughts regarding his crafting. I'd believe Hawkmoon and Corum, as well as his single novels such as Glorianna, were much more carefully crafted since world building are such major elements of those stories, whereas Elric was always about exploring the concept of the anti-hero as an 'anti-character' in fantasy literature. There's also a misconception about Moorcock and his feelings about Robert E. Howard-he actually loved Howard's work but was interested in making a character that was anything but an archetype in the genre. If I recall correctly, I think Moorcock was more resentful of Tolkien's work, or more specifically how Tolkien's work established a bar for the genre which Moorcock felt limited the medium as a whole.

I believe Martin had a plan with the first three books. I can see that in the ghost of the blueprint and it'd be very hard to move me off that position. But as the gaps in publications grew and grew and Martin's mind wandered more within the world he created, and with so many Worldcons to attend and TV deals to negotiate and seasons of NFL football to watch, he lost his focus and it resulted in a more ponderous and tedious follow up with A Feast for Crows. Martin has, literally, lost the plot in the behemoth he's created.

Howard, shockingly, had a pretty solid grasp on his Hyborian Age. He knew where the different countries were, knew the borders, knew JUST ENOUGH of the culture and lore of each of those regions that they served as a fertile bed for Conan stories. He could send Conan to any region to get in a fight and he could expand on that region's partiulars as the hero navigated his way through those treacherous areas. I think this is actually the best way to create episodic adventure; don't get too much into the weeds until you have to take a step into them.

As for Christopher Tolkien, he was a staunch defender of his father's creation and while this made it difficult for others to deal with him, I think that was ultimately for the best. He wasn't a fan of the films and I can totally understand why. At the same time, I believe Peter Jackson set out to do something that he believed was honoring the memory and idea of the books. It wasn't merely an appropriation of something he didn't create. Without CT around to slap Amazon around as they move forward with their TV series, I fear for that production's integrity.

 

[Marek]

The LOTR trilogy is fantastic. Especially the extended editions.

Hobbit movies I could do without but LOTR is about the best book to film adaptation I can think of.

You are wrong.

Certain vignettes are very beautiful. The shire, the cirith ungol, the very palpable immortality of the elves, etc.

But the actual adaptation of the source material was essentially an abomination.

The scouring of the shire was THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE TRILOGY. The hobbits leave as pudgy little goofballs regarded as children by the rest of the world, save the entire fucking world, then come.back and cut sarumons minions throats and save the shire, liberate their kinsmen, and have completed the cycle from goofy hobbit to battle hardened badasses.

In what situation can you actually omit the ending of a modern Homeric epic and have it be a decent representation of the source material and the author's intent?

 

[famicommander]

You are wrong.

Certain vignettes are very beautiful. The shire, the cirith ungol, the very palpable immortality of the elves, etc.

But the actual adaptation of the source material was essentially an abomination.

The scouring of the shire was THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE TRILOGY. The hobbits leave as pudgy little goofballs regarded as children by the rest of the world, save the entire fucking world, then come.back and cut sarumons minions throats and save the shire, liberate their kinsmen, and have completed the cycle from goofy hobbit to battle hardened badasses.

In what situation can you actually omit the ending of a modern Homeric epic and have it be a decent representation of the source material and the author's intent?

That story is already told in how the Hobbits rise to the occasion in the rest of the story. The battle at Minas Tirith, Mount Doom, the battle at the Black Gate. The scouring of the shire is redundant, and Return of the King doesn't need any more endings. There are already like 4 endings in that movie.

 

[norton9478]

First of all, RIP.

I like most of the changes that Jackson made to Lord of the Rings.

1. Changing Aragorn from a hokey one dimensional classic hero archetype to being a cool badass.
2. Including Arwyn and giving her things to do.
3. Cutting the old forest/barrow downs.
4. Making the Battle of the Hornburg truly epic.

As for the scouring of the shire. I understand why they cut it. It was a bit anti-climatic. Plus, it was kind of hokey to have Saruman as Sharky.

 

[Taiso]

That story is already told in how the Hobbits rise to the occasion in the rest of the story. The battle at Minas Tirith, Mount Doom, the battle at the Black Gate. The scouring of the shire is redundant, and Return of the King doesn't need any more endings. There are already like 4 endings in that movie.

I agree with this from a film adaptation standpoint. The theatrical cuts alone are three hours each, 4 hours each for the extended editions, and given that the hobbits have all gone on their grand adventure and returned home changed people (the essence of the monomyth, which is why the story still works today) with greater wisdom and experience to help make their community a better place, having them deal with a post script trial does feel redundant.

I think for the books, it works better because reading is a vastly more personal experience than watching and, being more interactive than a film due to 'mind's eye theater', creates a different sense of engagement and different experience for each person individually. I was never a fan of the Scouring even in the books but I can't say I hated it.

But really, Frodo sadly realizing that he can't just go back home again and pick up where he left off is as sobering a finale as the films needed. Pay attention, Rian Johnson you fucking piece of shit hack. This is how you subvert an expectation.

Edit:

Aragorn was always a cool badass, relative to the time period in which generational audiences engaged with the character. Watch the more faithful Bakshi adaptation, where Aragorn is one of the standouts in that film, and the only reason you'd dispute this is a futile effort to double down on an incorrect position. Stop it.

 

[norton9478]

The Bakshi adaptation is what made me realize how hokey Aragorn is.

Maybe Aragorn is right for when the book was written. But that doesn't fly today.

 

[norton9478]

THe extended Lord of the Rings Films are awesome. I prefer to watch them.

But the theatrical cuts are better films.

I tell Generation Z'ers who have never seen the films or read the book to watch the theatrical cuts first.

 

[Taiso]

Luke Skywalker, Captain America, Jon Snow and Amuro Rey are all amongst the most popular characters in their respective franchises.

All 'hokey' true blue heroes.

Just say you don't like that kind of character.

But they clearly 'still fly.'

 

[norton9478]

Luke Skywalker, Captain America, Jon Snow and Amuro Rey are all amongst the most popular characters in their respective franchises.

All 'hokey' true blue heroes.
'

You could also include babyface John Cena and Hulk Hogan. That doesn't mean that critically minded others might take a different approach.

Aragorn in the books (and Bakshi movie) is just a bit hokey to me. So anachronistic. Going into battle yelling the name of his sword. The movie character was a nice update.

Question:
Do any comic book superheroes still wear capes?

 

[norton9478]

Here is an interesting take on popular hero archetypes and how they have changed over time:

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment...-wars-character-might-changing-160058879.html

 

[famicommander]

Question:
Do any comic book superheroes still wear capes?

Batman, Superman, and most of their sidekicks/supporting characters for one.

 

[Taiso]

You could also include babyface John Cena and Hulk Hogan. That doesn't mean that critically minded others might take a different approach.

Aragorn in the books (and Bakshi movie) is just a bit hokey to me. So anachronistic. Going into battle yelling the name of his sword. The movie character was a nice update.

Question:
Do any comic book superheroes still wear capes?

'Critically minded others' aren't the majority. And this comment doesn't refute my point that archetypal good guy heroes are generally amongs the most popular characters in any given fictional undertaking. I've already cited plenty of examples, and thanks for giving me two more to add to the list.

So because Aragorn yells the name of his sword in the source material, he's an 'out of date' character?

The character is largely the same, holds the same place in the character composition, fulfills the same function and is just as admirable, forthright and upstanding as he was before.

If you're saying that Aragorn can't be a 1:1 translation from the books in order to play to Joe Average moviegoer, then congratulations. You've confirmed what all but the most staunch of purists already understand when it comes to adaptations.

But conceptually, the 'upright hero' hasn't ever really changed. They still represent the most noble and principled individuals in a given story. And they always will. They'll never be outdated so long as we remain a society that values moral character. Your mileage on whether or not that is the case is for you to determine for yourself.

 

[norton9478]

No, what I'm saying is that i liked the way that Jackson updated and tweaked the character.