Maybe there's enough info in the appendices or other works to flesh out a story here and there?
Otherwise I got nuttin'.
Yea... Tolkien was all about the "soloing days" of iconic characters
Are `there stories to be told here? You betcha! They won't be "Tolkien's stories", but some "women's studies" major who wants to attach their name to a true master.
Nothing in that quote really specified those movies would be about only one character, though. Stephen Totilo seems to have implied that, not the quote.
Good points.
To clarify, I'd like to see new Tolkien entertainment ideas. MY pessimism comes from the current attitudes that have "infected" media and games today. I no longer TRUST anyone in the "mainstream creative sphere" to handle ANY IP with due respect and reverence.
Yeah but I think that was always the case with any loved IP.
I mean, was the Ralph Bakshi Lord of the Rings or Hobbit so reverential to the material?
How about the John Boorman Lord of the Rings? Because that went way off the rails.
On the DVD extras, Peter Jackson talks extensively about why they had to change things.
Also, different mediums require a lot of different approaches.
Doesn't help that Tolkien was not very good at characters. Not his forte, he was busy elsewhere in the world building.
Then, of course, there's the changing of things for no good reason. Director sez 'I had this idea....'
That's the thing, it makes sense to change things in order to translate one medium for another but some people use it as an excuse so they can use a property as a jumping point for their own vision.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
On the DVD extras, Peter Jackson talks extensively about why they had to change things.
Also, different mediums require a lot of different approaches.
Doesn't help that Tolkien was not very good at characters. Not his forte, he was busy elsewhere in the world building.
Then, of course, there's the changing of things for no good reason. Director sez 'I had this idea....'
That's the thing, it makes sense to change things in order to translate one medium for another but some people use it as an excuse so they can use a property as a jumping point for their own vision.
Yup. And that is my breaking point. A novel is not a movie is not a TV Show. So things HAVE to change to adapt from one to the other. Sometimes even characters have to be cut or merged because you simply cannot introduce them all in the allotted time.
But today, there is far too much using "a property as a jumping point for their own vision".
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
On the DVD extras, Peter Jackson talks extensively about why they had to change things.
Also, different mediums require a lot of different approaches.
Doesn't help that Tolkien was not very good at characters. Not his forte, he was busy elsewhere in the world building.
Then, of course, there's the changing of things for no good reason. Director sez 'I had this idea....'
That's the thing, it makes sense to change things in order to translate one medium for another but some people use it as an excuse so they can use a property as a jumping point for their own vision.
Yup. And that is my breaking point. A novel is not a movie is not a TV Show. So things HAVE to change to adapt from one to the other. Sometimes even characters have to be cut or merged because you simply cannot introduce them all in the allotted time.
But today, there is far too much using "a property as a jumping point for their own vision".
If I was lured in because of a fondness for the IP, then about the surest way to discourage me is tremendous deviation from the IP. Someone else's vision created that IP; not yours. I want to see their ideas; not yours. Your interpretation of an IP is the most likely reason why I will close the door on your project.
That's how I feel. Creators just don't get me, I suspect.
"Using an IP for a jumping off point for their own vision" is my breaking point. The notion of using someone else's property to create your own property is running rampant within all sorts of entertainment media. Paying insane amounts of money to use an IP for their own vision is what I would call stupidity at an extreme degree.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
On the DVD extras, Peter Jackson talks extensively about why they had to change things.
Also, different mediums require a lot of different approaches.
Doesn't help that Tolkien was not very good at characters. Not his forte, he was busy elsewhere in the world building.
Then, of course, there's the changing of things for no good reason. Director sez 'I had this idea....'
That's the thing, it makes sense to change things in order to translate one medium for another but some people use it as an excuse so they can use a property as a jumping point for their own vision.
Yup. And that is my breaking point. A novel is not a movie is not a TV Show. So things HAVE to change to adapt from one to the other. Sometimes even characters have to be cut or merged because you simply cannot introduce them all in the allotted time.
But today, there is far too much using "a property as a jumping point for their own vision".
If I was lured in because of a fondness for the IP, then about the surest way to discourage me is tremendous deviation from the IP. Someone else's vision created that IP; not yours. I want to see their ideas; not yours. Your interpretation of an IP is the most likely reason why I will close the door on your project.
That's how I feel. Creators just don't get me, I suspect.
"Using an IP for a jumping off point for their own vision" is my breaking point. The notion of using someone else's property to create your own property is running rampant within all sorts of entertainment media. Paying insane amounts of money to use an IP for their own vision is what I would call stupidity at an extreme degree.
I disagree.
Nobody would even give a shit about Sapkowski's books if CDPR hadn't created a great game, and they didn't mimic the book storylines to do so. Sapkowski himself said the games are nothing like the books. But I think the world, if we're being honest, would declare the video games more valuable to society than his books.
By your measure, the video games are the problem. But the problem with that is: blindly applied, you're actually losing value.
Oh no! Must not reinterpret the Bible and do your own thing with it... oh wait, everyone does that.
Tolkien though, that's very different.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Bit of that thing of does one respect and build on the source, or alter and obfuscate.
The Witcher games can be called out for their departures, but they can also be noted for the depth of lore and narrative they build on from the novels. It's an irony on that end that the show similarly departs from the novels, but is seen more favorably by the author.
Have to divine what integrity the author is trying to hold up there too as a result.
Not so mething so easily applied to Tolkien's works, since outside of radio readings, Tolkien didn't live to oversee or judge the adaptations to his works that the majority of the public now consume.
Not sure what example the bible is meant to be. It's already a collection of a variety of writings, with some added or removed over time along with edits. Aside from being a collective work subject to gestalt interpretation, it also calls back to the distinction between evoking name directly or using it as the basis for a new narrative.
Bit like D&D, Melee, etc being based on LOTR, they derive themselves from a good chunk of the lore, but they still carry their own banner.
Bit of that thing of does one respect and build on the source, or alter and obfuscate.
The Witcher games can be called out for their departures, but they can also be noted for the depth of lore and narrative they build on from the novels. It's an irony on that end that the show similarly departs from the novels, but is seen more favorably by the author.
Have to divine what integrity the author is trying to hold up there too as a result.
Not so mething so easily applied to Tolkien's works, since outside of radio readings, Tolkien didn't live to oversee or judge the adaptations to his works that the majority of the public now consume.
Not sure what example the bible is meant to be. It's already a collection of a variety of writings, with some added or removed over time along with edits. Aside from being a collective work subject to gestalt interpretation, it also calls back to the distinction between evoking name directly or using it as the basis for a new narrative.
Bit like D&D, Melee, etc being based on LOTR, they derive themselves from a good chunk of the lore, but they still carry their own banner.
The Rings of Power will be in episode 4 of a planned 50 tonight. It's a bit early to say whether it will be a "respectful building on" or an obfuscation, don't you think?
Also.... who shall judge its respect to the source?
I thought comparing how Tolkien fanatics protect their canon and different interpretations of the bible by a multitude of congregations, each firmly believing that theirs is the only true interpretation and everyone else is going to hell, seemed pretty obvious with all the pedantic shit floating around anyone who dares change anything in their eyes.
Not that this is new. When I played LotRO there was a vociferous portion of the player base that absolutely lost their shit, first over the Loremaster's magic-like abilities and then over the more overtly magical Runekeeper.
Not to mention the Tolkien zealotry displayed in the endless bombing of the Peter Jackson movies way back when.
If you're not seeing the similarities with religious zealotry in the Tolkien faithful's behavior, that's on you because they're pretty damn obvious.
And I'm not even going to get into the company Tolkien fanatics are keeping in all the current Rings of Power review bombing and social media hate except to mention that I see a large dose of snarl cliches used prominently in this hate campaign.
You all need to take a chill pill.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
It's actually pretty easy for me, the Rings of Power shows are not Tolkien's work. No real need to compare every bit of lore, because they simply aren't Tolkein's work.
It's just a fantasy show based loosely on a superficial glance at Tolkien's world and characters. At best, it's just an alternative story, at worst a blatant rip-off to make money off of Tolkien's genius.
“Not that this is new. When I played LotRO there was a vociferous portion of the player base that absolutely lost their shit, first over the Loremaster's magic-like abilities and then over the more overtly magical Runekeeper.
Not to mention the Tolkien zealotry displayed in the endless bombing of the Peter Jackson movies way back when.”
I agree. Fans are fanatics.
I’m glad you pointed out those prior instances because too many people just want to scream “You just hate women or POC”.
I can agree that I am pretty obsessive about sticking to source material. Not just LOTR but it’s a pretty constant theme of mine. I understand changes must happen due to formats. A book is not a movie is not a TV Show. I just hate when a new person thinks they can improve on an existing work by making their own changes. Heck, I even disliked Sanderson finishing The Wheel of Time novels…even though there was no alternative.
We can have those debates. And they can be fun.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
I’m glad you pointed out those prior instances because too many people just want to scream “You just hate women or POC”.
Oh, that crowd is here too and very much part of the current social media hate. Elbow to elbow with the Tolkien fanatics.
But I give Tolkien fans enough credit to hate any soiling of their precious without being part of that reactionary group.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Bit of that thing of does one respect and build on the source, or alter and obfuscate.
The Witcher games can be called out for their departures, but they can also be noted for the depth of lore and narrative they build on from the novels. It's an irony on that end that the show similarly departs from the novels, but is seen more favorably by the author.
Have to divine what integrity the author is trying to hold up there too as a result.
Not so mething so easily applied to Tolkien's works, since outside of radio readings, Tolkien didn't live to oversee or judge the adaptations to his works that the majority of the public now consume.
Not sure what example the bible is meant to be. It's already a collection of a variety of writings, with some added or removed over time along with edits. Aside from being a collective work subject to gestalt interpretation, it also calls back to the distinction between evoking name directly or using it as the basis for a new narrative.
Bit like D&D, Melee, etc being based on LOTR, they derive themselves from a good chunk of the lore, but they still carry their own banner.
The Rings of Power will be in episode 4 of a planned 50 tonight. It's a bit early to say whether it will be a "respectful building on" or an obfuscation, don't you think?
<snip> (for brevity)
You all need to take a chill pill.
Fans have been "taking a chill pill" for decades now. Personally, I'm all "chill pilled" out.
They came for Star Wars and I "took a chill pill."
They came for the comic books and I took a "chill pill."
They came for any old TV show and I took a "chill pill."
They came for beloved movies and I took a "chill pill."
They came for Wheel of Time and I dumped my "chill pill" bottle.
They're now coming for Lord of the Rings and I am fighting back!
How do we ALL know "Rangs of Amazon" is shit? Their marketing and interviews have told us all. 'Nuff said, don't you think?
The reason they corrupt beloved IPs is they know they come with a built in fan base. Why was Star Wars so "expensive?" Fans. Why was Marvel so expensive? Fans.
WE (fans) make the IP successful or not.
On the plus side, in a decade or two, I'LL be able OWN Star Wars (for maybe $100), Marvel (maybe $10), DC (I'll still have pay off their debts!), and Tolkien for ($1). See you all in 2040
[Edited out the [political rant}
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Bit of that thing of does one respect and build on the source, or alter and obfuscate.
The Witcher games can be called out for their departures, but they can also be noted for the depth of lore and narrative they build on from the novels. It's an irony on that end that the show similarly departs from the novels, but is seen more favorably by the author.
Have to divine what integrity the author is trying to hold up there too as a result.
Not so mething so easily applied to Tolkien's works, since outside of radio readings, Tolkien didn't live to oversee or judge the adaptations to his works that the majority of the public now consume.
Not sure what example the bible is meant to be. It's already a collection of a variety of writings, with some added or removed over time along with edits. Aside from being a collective work subject to gestalt interpretation, it also calls back to the distinction between evoking name directly or using it as the basis for a new narrative.
Bit like D&D, Melee, etc being based on LOTR, they derive themselves from a good chunk of the lore, but they still carry their own banner.
The Rings of Power will be in episode 4 of a planned 50 tonight. It's a bit early to say whether it will be a "respectful building on" or an obfuscation, don't you think?
<snip> (for brevity)
You all need to take a chill pill.
Fans have been "taking a chill pill" for decades now. Personally, I'm all "chill pilled" out.
They came for Star Wars and I "took a chill pill."
They came for the comic books and I took a "chill pill."
They came for any old TV show and I took a "chill pill."
They came for beloved movies and I took a "chill pill."
They came for Wheel of Time and I dumped my "chill pill" bottle.
They're now coming for Lord of the Rings and I am fighting back!
How do we ALL know "Rangs of Amazon" is shit? Their marketing and interviews have told us all. 'Nuff said, don't you think?
The reason they corrupt beloved IPs is they know they come with a built in fan base. Why was Star Wars so "expensive?" Fans. Why was Marvel so expensive? Fans.
WE (fans) make the IP successful or not.
On the plus side, in a decade or two, I'LL be able OWN Star Wars (for maybe $100), Marvel (maybe $10), DC (I'll still have pay off their debts!), and Tolkien for ($1). See you all in 2040
[Edited out the [political rant}
Says the guy who also said "...but some "women's studies" major who wants to attach their name to a true master."
Is it Tolkien or women's studies that's really winding you up?
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Rewriting elements without grasping impact on the overall setting and narrative does bother me though. Like a prior example of the Durin lineage being considered a reincarnation, and was not hereditary. But now in the show, it is and we have two Durin at the same time.
While, yes, the show is quite early, it's already been changing things that reaches beyond its own narrative.
It's a little crass to throw that all under the bus because of others bandwagoning.
And sure, "zealotry" can be called out. But it can also be getting evoked as a dismissive argument to ignore otherwise reasonable points. Similarly, zealots and fanatics don't exist just as representatives of fandoms. If we're going to evoke the argument of biblical cal fanatics, then we should acknowledge that they are not arguing all in a single direction. The congregation statement shows that.
When you see someone firing out arguments to justify or defend a new media, then are they not also a "zealot"? I recall an article linked in a prior thread that tried justifying some changes by ripping quotes out of context and misplacing events and people in the timeline. Are they not a zealot for vehemently defending their chosen media, with misinformation of all things?
It's a reductive argument to present, because just as you apply it to fans of the original, so too does it swing the other way, and worse it relies on devaluing the people over discussing the subject.
Then my post doesn't really apply to your arguments, nor was it intended as such.
It's one thing to take issue with changing established lore in an IP. It's quite another to blame a social commentary angle in a work that quite frankly included social commentary originally.
At that point, arguments over social commentary's effects aren't "get politics out of my favorite IP," it's "get all the politics I don't like out of my favorite IP." As you can imagine, one is a much stronger argument than the other. As you can also imagine, a lot of people conflate the two.
Rewriting elements without grasping impact on the overall setting and narrative does bother me though. Like a prior example of the Durin lineage being considered a reincarnation, and was not hereditary. But now in the show, it is and we have two Durin at the same time.
While, yes, the show is quite early, it's already been changing things that reaches beyond its own narrative.
It's a little crass to throw that all under the bus because of others bandwagoning.
And sure, "zealotry" can be called out. But it can also be getting evoked as a dismissive argument to ignore otherwise reasonable points. Similarly, zealots and fanatics don't exist just as representatives of fandoms. When you see someone firing out arguments to justify or defend a new media, are they not also possibly a "zealot"? I recall an article linked in a prior thread that tried justifying some lore by ripping quotes out of context and misplacing events and people in the timeline. Are they not a zealot for vehemently defending their chosen media, with misinformation of all things?
It's a reductive argument to present, because just as you apply it to fans of the original, so too does it swing the other way, and worse it relies on devaluing the people over discussing the subject.
Thing is that the Rings of Power does not need defending nor have I ever attempted to do so. It is its own thing set in that universe.
Is it Tolkien? Well since the guy is dead, no it isn't...duh.
I judge it solely on whether it entertains me or not, the same as the Peter Jackson movies and the various video games set in that universe. And I judge it relative to the fantasy TV series genre which has historically been a rather low bar until very recently after all.
All these reconciliation attempts with the One Lore are annoying noise. It's Middle Earth enough for my enjoyment of tales in a place I care enough about to want new tales set there,
The constant whining about the show is annoying though.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
On the DVD extras, Peter Jackson talks extensively about why they had to change things.
Also, different mediums require a lot of different approaches.
Doesn't help that Tolkien was not very good at characters. Not his forte, he was busy elsewhere in the world building.
Then, of course, there's the changing of things for no good reason. Director sez 'I had this idea....'
That's the thing, it makes sense to change things in order to translate one medium for another but some people use it as an excuse so they can use a property as a jumping point for their own vision.
Yup. And that is my breaking point. A novel is not a movie is not a TV Show. So things HAVE to change to adapt from one to the other. Sometimes even characters have to be cut or merged because you simply cannot introduce them all in the allotted time.
But today, there is far too much using "a property as a jumping point for their own vision".
If I was lured in because of a fondness for the IP, then about the surest way to discourage me is tremendous deviation from the IP. Someone else's vision created that IP; not yours. I want to see their ideas; not yours. Your interpretation of an IP is the most likely reason why I will close the door on your project.
That's how I feel. Creators just don't get me, I suspect.
"Using an IP for a jumping off point for their own vision" is my breaking point. The notion of using someone else's property to create your own property is running rampant within all sorts of entertainment media. Paying insane amounts of money to use an IP for their own vision is what I would call stupidity at an extreme degree.
I disagree.
Nobody would even give a shit about Sapkowski's books if CDPR hadn't created a great game, and they didn't mimic the book storylines to do so. Sapkowski himself said the games are nothing like the books. But I think the world, if we're being honest, would declare the video games more valuable to society than his books.
By your measure, the video games are the problem. But the problem with that is: blindly applied, you're actually losing value.
See, I didn't even know that there was a connection between the Witcher series of CDPR games and an existing IP. Thanks for that info.
But, was CDPR heavily focused on using the IP to sell their game? Witcher stands alone as a game, without knowledge of the books. I've not seen any evidence that CDPR was promoting their games as "Sapkowski's Witcher series", whereas the various LotR projects heavily state their ties to the fictional works. If a company is selling me on the idea of an existing IP, then I expect that IP. As far as I can tell, CDPR didn't try to sell their games as a representation of Sapkowski's works. I can treat them as separate entities based on parallel ideas, much like many games use 'Nazis'.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Take the history of Galadriel as an example. She was part of the group of elves who chased Morgoth to Middle Earth to get back the Silmaril that he stole from them.
To do that, the elves asked the sea-faring elves to take them there, or to loan them their ships. But the sea-faring elves refused, whereupon Galadriel and her company KILLED LARGE NUMBERS OF ELVES, and STOLE THEIR BOATS.
When they landed in Middle Earth, they burned the boats. Galadriel was considered a criminal and was banished. She could never return to Elvenhome, she was an outcast.
In the Lord of the Rings, she was offered the One Ring and refused to take it. By that move, she was granted a pardon and was allowed back to Elvenhome.
From what I can gather, all of that is missing from Rings of Power. It's like they took the name, and just made up a bunch of stuff about her.
Rewriting elements without grasping impact on the overall setting and narrative does bother me though. Like a prior example of the Durin lineage being considered a reincarnation, and was not hereditary. But now in the show, it is and we have two Durin at the same time.
While, yes, the show is quite early, it's already been changing things that reaches beyond its own narrative.
It's a little crass to throw that all under the bus because of others bandwagoning.
And sure, "zealotry" can be called out. But it can also be getting evoked as a dismissive argument to ignore otherwise reasonable points. Similarly, zealots and fanatics don't exist just as representatives of fandoms. When you see someone firing out arguments to justify or defend a new media, are they not also possibly a "zealot"? I recall an article linked in a prior thread that tried justifying some lore by ripping quotes out of context and misplacing events and people in the timeline. Are they not a zealot for vehemently defending their chosen media, with misinformation of all things?
It's a reductive argument to present, because just as you apply it to fans of the original, so too does it swing the other way, and worse it relies on devaluing the people over discussing the subject.
Thing is that the Rings of Power does not need defending nor have I ever attempted to do so. It is its own thing set in that universe.
Is it Tolkien? Well since the guy is dead, no it isn't...duh.
I judge it solely on whether it entertains me or not, the same as the Peter Jackson movies and the various video games set in that universe. And I judge it relative to the fantasy TV series genre which has historically been a rather low bar until very recently after all.
All these reconciliation attempts with the One Lore are annoying noise. It's Middle Earth enough for my enjoyment of tales in a place I care enough about to want new tales set there,
The constant whining about the show is annoying though.
That's fine for a personal perspective, but you shouldn't lose sight of the fact that a) it's a personal perspective, and b) just as one can bring up the band wagoning on one side, so too can someone bring it up in the opposing direction.
When you bring up the subject of zealotry or "the company Tolkien fanatics are keeping", is it not fair for others to swing it in the other direction that has it's mirrored cases? Who was it that posted the article I responded to in the other thread as well?
It's on the same token, the constant whining about "get over it" or chill pills, especially when accompanied by misinformation and name calling, does not amount to an opposition those who are dissatisfied are apt to see as anything more than annoying as well. Rather that spurs more opposition.
Like I'd said in another thread as well, I don't mind if people enjoy it, and for me the issues the show has is mostly just a bother, as I see them tampering with the setting and lore in a way that impacts much broader parts of the timeline when I pause to think about it, and that's problematic for the IP as a whole when new authors are accidentally retconning things across the setting.
That doesn't have to bother everyone, but it bothers me. Just as someone doesn't want their enjoyment to get dragged down by complaints or buried under reconciliation attempts, so too may others not enjoy being lumped in with bandwagons or the subject of the setting itself being buried under dismissive or reductive reasoning.
Then my post doesn't really apply to your arguments, nor was it intended as such.
It's one thing to take issue with changing established lore in an IP. It's quite another to blame a social commentary angle in a work that quite frankly included social commentary originally.
At that point, arguments over social commentary's effects aren't "get politics out of my favorite IP," it's "get all the politics I don't like out of my favorite IP." As you can imagine, one is a much stronger argument than the other. As you can also imagine, a lot of people conflate the two.
Certainly there are issues there, but I'd point out my comment was not a direct response to yours and split it's subject upwards with response to other's comments as well.
On this particular point, I would say similar to other topics, be aware that's not a one way road. "Get all the politics I don't like out of my favorite IP" applies in multiple directions, and while we have some vocal reactionaries we can point to in one direction, they do not exist in isolation on the internet or world at large. Ultimately that's in part the pendulum effect, different groups of people swinging to harder extremes in reaction to opposing opinion.
For example, It's become more of a habit of having to note that social commentary isn't the reason I have a gripe with a given media, expressly because a big reflex many seem to have to someone saying they aren't into something new, it to dismiss that as being because of such opinions. It makes for unnecessary and antagonistic relations based on projected feelings instead of reasoned conversation of the actual subject.
See, I didn't even know that there was a connection between the Witcher series of CDPR games and an existing IP. Thanks for that info.
But, was CDPR heavily focused on using the IP to sell their game? Witcher stands alone as a game, without knowledge of the books. I've not seen any evidence that CDPR was promoting their games as "Sapkowski's Witcher series", whereas the various LotR projects heavily state their ties to the fictional works. If a company is selling me on the idea of an existing IP, then I expect that IP. As far as I can tell, CDPR didn't try to sell their games as a representation of Sapkowski's works. I can treat them as separate entities based on parallel ideas, much like many games use 'Nazis'.
The entire idea of Witchers, as a concept, was taken directly from the books.
Geralt's identity, including his nicknames (such as the White Wolf) and likeness, were peeled wholesale from the books.
The locations. The magic system. The monsters. They didn't make a point to reference the books because, frankly, almost nobody would have cared or even understood what they were talking about. That isn't based on how closely they followed the original IP- it was strictly a marketing decision (just like advertising the connection to LotR), just in the other direction.
To be consistent in the argument, one would need to argue that the far more popular and socially relevant video games are somehow "wrong," where Sapkowski's relatively unknown books are "right." Because despite the obvious inspiration taken from the books for many people, places, and things, Sapkowski does not like what CDPR did with the IP in the video games. So much so he considers them completely separate from his books. But this isn't as general an idea as Nazis by any measure.
So are they wrong, despite having the legal standing via contract to do exactly what they did with his IP?
Edit-- for an added layer of mud, consider Sapkowski looked back to European monster folk tales for the inspiration of many of the monsters he created in his books.
It's a reductive argument to present, because just as you apply it to fans of the original, so too does it swing the other way, and worse it relies on devaluing the people over discussing the subject.
Ding Ding Ding Winner Winner Chicken Dinner
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
As did the video games. Sapkowski has reluctantly admitted they had a positive effect on his book sales and has bemoaned the young crowds at many of his public appearances who do not understand how Sapkowski had no real input on how CDPR adapted the games. They only knew he was the name behind the books behind the games they loved.
So again, to be consistent, should Sapkowski not begrudge the extra money he made, since he doesn't agree with the way studios have altered his material? Should those who argue for sanctity of maintaining an IP's roots begrudge the video games, TV show, and extra money Sapkowski made from the effects of both? Or is it okay simply because the general public likes the adaptations more?
Comments
I mean, was the Ralph Bakshi Lord of the Rings or Hobbit so reverential to the material?
How about the John Boorman Lord of the Rings? Because that went way off the rails.
https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Adaptations_of_The_Lord_of_the_Rings#:~:text=Three%20film%20adaptations%20of%20The,television%20special%20by%20Rankin%2DBass.
glad it wasn't finished and "reader beware" it gets slightly blue.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Also, different mediums require a lot of different approaches.
Doesn't help that Tolkien was not very good at characters. Not his forte, he was busy elsewhere in the world building.
Then, of course, there's the changing of things for no good reason. Director sez 'I had this idea....'
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
A novel is not a movie is not a TV Show. So things HAVE to change to adapt from one to the other. Sometimes even characters have to be cut or merged because you simply cannot introduce them all in the allotted time.
But today, there is far too much using "a property as a jumping point for their own vision".
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
If I was lured in because of a fondness for the IP, then about the surest way to discourage me is tremendous deviation from the IP. Someone else's vision created that IP; not yours. I want to see their ideas; not yours. Your interpretation of an IP is the most likely reason why I will close the door on your project.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Nobody would even give a shit about Sapkowski's books if CDPR hadn't created a great game, and they didn't mimic the book storylines to do so. Sapkowski himself said the games are nothing like the books. But I think the world, if we're being honest, would declare the video games more valuable to society than his books.
By your measure, the video games are the problem. But the problem with that is: blindly applied, you're actually losing value.
Tolkien though, that's very different.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Bit of that thing of does one respect and build on the source, or alter and obfuscate.
The Witcher games can be called out for their departures, but they can also be noted for the depth of lore and narrative they build on from the novels. It's an irony on that end that the show similarly departs from the novels, but is seen more favorably by the author.
Have to divine what integrity the author is trying to hold up there too as a result.
Not so mething so easily applied to Tolkien's works, since outside of radio readings, Tolkien didn't live to oversee or judge the adaptations to his works that the majority of the public now consume.
Not sure what example the bible is meant to be. It's already a collection of a variety of writings, with some added or removed over time along with edits. Aside from being a collective work subject to gestalt interpretation, it also calls back to the distinction between evoking name directly or using it as the basis for a new narrative.
Bit like D&D, Melee, etc being based on LOTR, they derive themselves from a good chunk of the lore, but they still carry their own banner.
Also.... who shall judge its respect to the source?
I thought comparing how Tolkien fanatics protect their canon and different interpretations of the bible by a multitude of congregations, each firmly believing that theirs is the only true interpretation and everyone else is going to hell, seemed pretty obvious with all the pedantic shit floating around anyone who dares change anything in their eyes.
Not that this is new. When I played LotRO there was a vociferous portion of the player base that absolutely lost their shit, first over the Loremaster's magic-like abilities and then over the more overtly magical Runekeeper.
Not to mention the Tolkien zealotry displayed in the endless bombing of the Peter Jackson movies way back when.
If you're not seeing the similarities with religious zealotry in the Tolkien faithful's behavior, that's on you because they're pretty damn obvious.
And I'm not even going to get into the company Tolkien fanatics are keeping in all the current Rings of Power review bombing and social media hate except to mention that I see a large dose of snarl cliches used prominently in this hate campaign.
You all need to take a chill pill.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
“Not that this is new. When I played LotRO there was a vociferous portion of the player base that absolutely lost their shit, first over the Loremaster's magic-like abilities and then over the more overtly magical Runekeeper.
Not to mention the Tolkien zealotry displayed in the endless bombing of the Peter Jackson movies way back when.”
I agree. Fans are fanatics.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
But I give Tolkien fans enough credit to hate any soiling of their precious without being part of that reactionary group.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Is it Tolkien or women's studies that's really winding you up?
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Which is just... Wild to me.
Rewriting elements without grasping impact on the overall setting and narrative does bother me though. Like a prior example of the Durin lineage being considered a reincarnation, and was not hereditary. But now in the show, it is and we have two Durin at the same time.
While, yes, the show is quite early, it's already been changing things that reaches beyond its own narrative.
It's a little crass to throw that all under the bus because of others bandwagoning.
And sure, "zealotry" can be called out. But it can also be getting evoked as a dismissive argument to ignore otherwise reasonable points. Similarly, zealots and fanatics don't exist just as representatives of fandoms. If we're going to evoke the argument of biblical cal fanatics, then we should acknowledge that they are not arguing all in a single direction. The congregation statement shows that.
When you see someone firing out arguments to justify or defend a new media, then are they not also a "zealot"? I recall an article linked in a prior thread that tried justifying some changes by ripping quotes out of context and misplacing events and people in the timeline. Are they not a zealot for vehemently defending their chosen media, with misinformation of all things?
It's a reductive argument to present, because just as you apply it to fans of the original, so too does it swing the other way, and worse it relies on devaluing the people over discussing the subject.
It's one thing to take issue with changing established lore in an IP. It's quite another to blame a social commentary angle in a work that quite frankly included social commentary originally.
At that point, arguments over social commentary's effects aren't "get politics out of my favorite IP," it's "get all the politics I don't like out of my favorite IP." As you can imagine, one is a much stronger argument than the other. As you can also imagine, a lot of people conflate the two.
Is it Tolkien? Well since the guy is dead, no it isn't...duh.
I judge it solely on whether it entertains me or not, the same as the Peter Jackson movies and the various video games set in that universe. And I judge it relative to the fantasy TV series genre which has historically been a rather low bar until very recently after all.
All these reconciliation attempts with the One Lore are annoying noise. It's Middle Earth enough for my enjoyment of tales in a place I care enough about to want new tales set there,
The constant whining about the show is annoying though.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
When you bring up the subject of zealotry or "the company Tolkien fanatics are keeping", is it not fair for others to swing it in the other direction that has it's mirrored cases? Who was it that posted the article I responded to in the other thread as well?
It's on the same token, the constant whining about "get over it" or chill pills, especially when accompanied by misinformation and name calling, does not amount to an opposition those who are dissatisfied are apt to see as anything more than annoying as well. Rather that spurs more opposition.
Like I'd said in another thread as well, I don't mind if people enjoy it, and for me the issues the show has is mostly just a bother, as I see them tampering with the setting and lore in a way that impacts much broader parts of the timeline when I pause to think about it, and that's problematic for the IP as a whole when new authors are accidentally retconning things across the setting.
That doesn't have to bother everyone, but it bothers me. Just as someone doesn't want their enjoyment to get dragged down by complaints or buried under reconciliation attempts, so too may others not enjoy being lumped in with bandwagons or the subject of the setting itself being buried under dismissive or reductive reasoning.
On this particular point, I would say similar to other topics, be aware that's not a one way road. "Get all the politics I don't like out of my favorite IP" applies in multiple directions, and while we have some vocal reactionaries we can point to in one direction, they do not exist in isolation on the internet or world at large. Ultimately that's in part the pendulum effect, different groups of people swinging to harder extremes in reaction to opposing opinion.
For example, It's become more of a habit of having to note that social commentary isn't the reason I have a gripe with a given media, expressly because a big reflex many seem to have to someone saying they aren't into something new, it to dismiss that as being because of such opinions. It makes for unnecessary and antagonistic relations based on projected feelings instead of reasoned conversation of the actual subject.
Geralt's identity, including his nicknames (such as the White Wolf) and likeness, were peeled wholesale from the books.
The locations. The magic system. The monsters. They didn't make a point to reference the books because, frankly, almost nobody would have cared or even understood what they were talking about. That isn't based on how closely they followed the original IP- it was strictly a marketing decision (just like advertising the connection to LotR), just in the other direction.
To be consistent in the argument, one would need to argue that the far more popular and socially relevant video games are somehow "wrong," where Sapkowski's relatively unknown books are "right." Because despite the obvious inspiration taken from the books for many people, places, and things, Sapkowski does not like what CDPR did with the IP in the video games. So much so he considers them completely separate from his books. But this isn't as general an idea as Nazis by any measure.
So are they wrong, despite having the legal standing via contract to do exactly what they did with his IP?
Edit-- for an added layer of mud, consider Sapkowski looked back to European monster folk tales for the inspiration of many of the monsters he created in his books.
Winner Winner Chicken Dinner
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
As did the video games. Sapkowski has reluctantly admitted they had a positive effect on his book sales and has bemoaned the young crowds at many of his public appearances who do not understand how Sapkowski had no real input on how CDPR adapted the games. They only knew he was the name behind the books behind the games they loved.
So again, to be consistent, should Sapkowski not begrudge the extra money he made, since he doesn't agree with the way studios have altered his material? Should those who argue for sanctity of maintaining an IP's roots begrudge the video games, TV show, and extra money Sapkowski made from the effects of both? Or is it okay simply because the general public likes the adaptations more?