Discuss

>It tramples upon the dignity of Tolkien's work
How so? the movies and the books are two different monsters altogether. I've had friends whom don't read regularly, yet the movies attracted them to the books. Then you can judge the movies based on the source material (which is what Cristopher seems to be doing) or just think of it as two separate things.

>exposure to all of these films as it tends to inform and overwrite people's conceptions of the source material

This is completely true, yet again not sure it is entirely a bad thing. Everytime I see the movies, I feel the urge to go back and read the books because of this (and love doing it)

chill out George, maybe there will something about taxes in the show

>"They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25," Christopher says regretfully. "And it seems that The Hobbit will be the same kind of film."
"Oh no, they made my dad's linguistic wankery into something ordinary people might actually enjoy! The horror!"

>who hates Jackson fans and sabotaged every adaption after that out of spite
He's not wrong.

"Ordinary people" are idiots who can go die in a fire.

>"muh 1200 or so pages of turgid archaisms and kjv aping are being desecrated!"
the horror, the horror

This so hard. People praise the Jackson trilogy but it honest to god has nothing to do with the Lord of the Rings.

Just look at any of the characters. Take Aragorn for example. Does he resemble the actual Aragorn? Not in the slightest. Jackson made him into the easy to digest "doubtful hero" archetype and that's all he was. Major themes and significance were lost as a result. He spends 3 movies debating if he wants to take the throne and fuck his super hot Elf bride...like, what the hell. The original Aragorn was a god-like figure, a hero and a leader. Jackson understood this solely to mean he should be good at fighting. And fight a lot! The only things the adaptations and the source material have in common are the names, one siphon's relevance from the other, and drags them both down to a lower level of discourse and understanding.

The films are dreck. It's totally unsurprising that the artist who poured his heart and soul into his work wouldn't want it perverted and commodified for the consumers of dreck.

What does that pic mean? Is Frodo a transformer?

>it's a co-optation of Tolkien's "ideals"
How did they get the rights to start the adaptations in the first place? According to Wiki:

J. R. R. Tolkien, the author of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, sold the film, stage and merchandising rights of those works to United Artists in 1968, who in turn sold them to The Saul Zaentz Company in 1976.[2] United Artist retained distribution rights.[3] Zaentz Company licenses them through the former Tolkien Enterprises, now Middle-earth Enterprises.

So co-optation doesn't seem fit for the case here.

>into a ready-to-ship package of generalized and cheap hero's journey.
Again. How can a movie change the source content? If someone things they can have a formed opinion on the source material based on a movie, then they are wrong and that's that.

> kjv aping
0/10 troll, did you accidentally into the wrong thread?

Get ready for (((them))) to rape Tolkien’s works.

the amazon series is confirmed to be "canon" fanfiction based on how the tolkien estate handled the sale of the rights. it's taking place sometime before the hobbit, probably during the third age.

>the dignity of your father's life's work

only the most retarded liberals claim their is dignity in entertainment

So? They’ll fill it with non-whites. I’ll bet you $20. Send the money to Francis Percy Prendergast at 343 Rookwood Street, El Paso, Texas when I’m eventually proven right.

>not the lord of the rangz

>literature
>entertainment
leave

I think I'd rather send you black male prostitutes.

>conserving the state of literary classics is a liberal concept
how brainless do you have to be to suggest such a thin false flag

The very worst part of Jackson's trilogy is right at the end when the Ring gets destroyed. Jackson includes this fucking stupid bit where Frodo has to "choose life" as the Ring floats on lava. Only when Frodo grabs Sam's hand does the Ring finally melt, as if Frodo had an active hand in destroying the Ring.

This is completely counter to what actually happens in the books, where none of the characters actively destroy the Ring in any way. Gollum fucking slips on some rock and falls into the lava and THAT destroys the Ring. It's completely out of anybody's hands, which is what Tolkien intended since the entire scene is about Providence and the will of God.

Gollum was pushed by Manwe
There's still room for Frodo to choose life (with pain) or the release of death.

>>conserving the state of literary classics
The works still exist in their correct state. Making film adaptations changed nothing. You're basically whining about how people are perceiving the works incorrectly, which isn't something you can ultimately control.

>The very worst part of Jackson's trilogy is right at the end when the Ring gets destroyed. Jackson includes this fucking stupid bit where Frodo has to "choose life" as the Ring floats on lava. Only when Frodo grabs Sam's hand does the Ring finally melt, as if Frodo had an active hand in destroying the Ring.
I don't think that's a necessary interpretation of that scene. I never took it as implying that Frodo contributed in that way.

You all should learn to view adaptations as what they really are, which is separate entities from the source material. An adaptation isn't a recreation of the source material, but rather the reshaping of the source material such that it fits the constraints and conventions of another medium. It's a separate thing and should be taken on its own terms. Being inferior to the source material doesn't necessarily mean anything, since it's constructed under a different paradigm.

>Gollum was pushed by Manwe
What a retarded fucking interpretation. Manwe is not God. Nor does he have a hand in blind chance.

You mean Eru.

>create giant and vulgar caricatures of Jesus Christ
>plaster them everywhere
>guys the bible still exists in its original state, you can't expect to control what people do or think
ok moron

I feel like there is a difference here. But regardless, that's pretty much the situation today. Do you think we should have anti-blasphemy laws?

>adaption

It's not about the law but the culture. Society lives to whore and to consume and to whore consumption. It's clearly indecent, but few see clearly.

Of all the things wrong with society, unfaithful adaptations of novels is one of the things that I simply can't get worked up about. Besides, considered as their own entities the LotR films are even good movies and don't have anything degenerate about them. I'm honestly surprised that they even got made, given the culture.

It is a co-optation insofar as Tolkien's works have been engulfed by the larger scheme of high fantasy in order to fit a package where other things can also be measured against it, by using the same parameters. LOTR was not "Tolkien's" even before selling it as film, for it was already the starting point for the larger niche of fantasy to develop. Perhaps the previous post sounded too much like criticism but there's nothing "wrong" with that, Tolkien did the only sensible thing by selling it and the rest of his family ought to have followed, which is the point in discussion @OP.

As for the difference between adaptations and source content, they are of course superficial, but surface is all that counts here: D&D is its own monster but derives superficially from LOTR, just like the LOTR movies also derive superficially from source to become its own thing. Heck, it could be argued that LOTR itself derives from deeply ingrained post war traumas that Tolkien was able to carefully tailor into the philology of his own "mind palace" (i.e Middle-Earth) and be able to deal with life past war. Co-optation is a common facet of human relations and takes in a whole new scale when applied to markets. Accepting it's not going anywhere is the best that "purists" can do, such as .

Co-optation obviously also have a much more destructive role insofar as LOTR has much more non-economical value than any of its adaptations or derived works. It appears to me that whenever you adapt, "revive", or otherwise borrow from any creative source, you are always slowly but surely increasing the shift into pure economical value. See all the merchandise that ultimately pops up whenever anything becomes famous nowadays. This is destructive because only a single parameter remains absolute to compare everything (prices), but there are people much better than me that have already written about this and elaborated its consequences in a far more eloquent way.

CHILDREN OF HURIN MOVIE
MAKE EM ALL BLACK, I DON'T CARE.
>CHILDREN OF HURIN MOVIE

>disdaining art is acceptable
>thinking the lotr films were good or even unlikely to be made
You understand morons have been sucking Tolkien's cock since the hippy era, right? And to tolerate degeneracy is to foster degeneracy.

who has written about this?

Is there a possibility that they might just boom make all the estate public domain in order to keep the IP eternally under copyright by some greedy fucking Disney-tier group? It might be our only long-term hope

*In order to keep the IP form being eternally under copyright

Jackson is a hack

"Autobots, more than meets the eye" was a catch phrase from Transformers

Genre Fiction doesn't belong on Veeky Forums

Zzzzz

Fucking go kiss sam hyde's ring and start your own right wing east coast hollywood if you're sick of it then

That sequence is hilarious and does on film what literature cannot get across so easily.

It is literally what the point of a cross-medium adaptation is.

Even if the rest of that movie (which I've never seen btw) sucks, that moment gets it right

In his forward to beren and luthien he basically writes a yearning letter to his father, preparing himself for death, and asking forgiveness for his faults. It was good stuff

Maybe if hollywood focused on making good movies instead of fussing about diversity the average person might buy more than four tickets a year.

>Read novel.
>Go to movie?
>No thanks, it would only debase my experience and fund world enslavement.
--Based Lit

>In a letter to me on the subject of my mother, written in the year after her death, which was also the year before his own, he wrote of his overwhelming sense of bereavement, and of his wish to have Lúthien inscribed beneath her name on the grave. He returned in that letter, as in that cited on p. 29 of this book, to the origin of the tale of Beren and Luthien in a small woodland glade filled with hemlock flowers near Roos in Yorkshire, where she danced; and he said: ‘But the story has gone crooked, and I am left, and I cannot plead before the inexorable Mandos.’
I didn't ask for these feels, damn you user.

>Take Aragorn for example. Does he resemble the actual Aragorn? Not in the slightest. Jackson made him into the easy to digest "doubtful hero" archetype and that's all he was. Major themes and significance were lost as a result.
>tfw this bothered me tremendously too
So much of the Jackson trilogy was just bland and meaningless pandering. The example of Aragorn is very good, he doesn't want to be king precisely because modern people distrust those in positions of power, it's pure ressentiment, which Jackson happily caters to. But this is absurd since the kingship is very useful and could better the world, discounting the fact the alternative here is to be homeless and watch everyone die, Aragorn's character IS someone who has been raised since birth to fulfill this role, he embodies virtue and strength. Modern audiences hate both, which they lack, and so Aragorn's character becomes completely anachronistic to the TLotR by becoming modern. But isn't anachronism the appeal of TLotR? Of fantasy itself? So much sense of scale and romance is lost when you take contemporary tropes and dress them in the skin of something else, the whole thing is perverse.

This.

What they did to Faramir was even more inexcusable. I'm STILL fucking mad about what they did to Faramir. Fuck everything. And fuck them for ruining Denethor, too.

Again, because strength and resolution against the overwhelming aren't easily recognized or valued by today's audience. Having him moronically commit suicide on his deranged father's whim is somehow more empathetic or tragic, that speaks more to his nobility.

>tfw sexy balrog villainnesses might be a thing soon

>current year
>expecting movies and corporations to not suck
Kek.

Elves confirmed to be Black POCs in Amazon adaptation

Fuck you. Everything about it is horrible.

I wonder how many characters from the Silmarillion they will turn into POC.

All elves. Elves will be black or asian by default. Valar and Maiar will be black and hispanic, respectively. Except for Melkor, Sauron, and the Balrogs, they'll be white.

Patrick Rothfuss presents Finga'finn vs the Whitegoth

Idris Elba as Kang Finga'finn
Mark Ruffalo as Whitegoth
John Boyega as ManWE
Kevin Spacey as Ar-Pharazon
Lena Dunham as Luthien

This made my teeth hurt. Stop it user

I've always been confused as to why the throne of Gondor and Arnor wasn't claimed sooner. Why didn't Elrond reforge Narsil for Arathorn, or any of Aragorn's other ancestors? Why did Aragorn go to Gondor disguised as a captain instead of claiming his birthright? Surely it wasn't to hide him from Sauron, since everyone believed he was defeated. It somewhat makes sense in Peter Jackson's version since Aragorn is made into a reluctant hero, though, at the same time, that would require generations of reluctant heroes. I just do not undrstand why Isildur's line hid away in the north for so long.

I figured they were waiting for the ring to get destroyed before Isildurs heir could take the throne. I dont think this was ever explicitly said, but that was the impression I got.

ME is part of a shared culture. Christopher shouldn't have a monopoly on it just because he's related to the guy who wrote it. That's not even how copyright is supposed to work.

>Why did Aragorn go to Gondor disguised as a captain instead of claiming his birthright? Surely it wasn't to hide him from Sauron, since everyone believed he was defeated.
brapap
>But Éomer said: ‘Already you have raised the banner of the Kings and displayed the tokens of Elendil’s House. Will you suffer these to be challenged?’
>‘No,’ said Aragorn. ‘But I deem the time unripe; and I have no mind for strife except with our Enemy and his servants.’
>And the Prince Imrahil said: ‘Your words, lord, are wise, if one who is a kinsman of the Lord Denethor may counsel you in this matter. He is strong-willed and proud, but old; and his mood has been strange since his son was stricken down. Yet I would not have you remain like a beggar at the door.’
>‘Not a beggar,’ said Aragorn. ‘Say a captain of the Rangers, who are unused to cities and houses of stone.’ And he commanded that his banner should be furled; and he did off the Star of the North Kingdom and gave it to the keeping of the sons of Elrond.

>who is Arvedui?
Maybe try reading the books you're complaining about, user.

>the dignity of your father's life works

precisely
It is so absurd that intellectual property extends to heirs.
Inheriting the money their parents made? fine.
Have intellectual property of something that didn't come out of you? fucking ridiculous

It's a great move. The man capitalized on his father's success by publishing all his work under his father's name while claiming to be stay true to his vision. Whether or not that's true, Tolkien has more posthumously published books than any other author because of this faggot, and it's pathetic.

The Hobbit films were pretty bad...

>Beren black
This won't bother me. If anything, it'll illustrate the point better because it will be a familiar concept to contemporary audiences. It's a bit old (they did it in Star Trek) but I'm trying to look at this with the perspective of the work itself and how it might affect it, not the culture it catering to. Contrived cuck stunt or no, making him black might actually be a smart move. Besides, there have been literally no black actors in any of the films, except for maybe the orcs.

Get the fuck over it.

ugh pam gets my dick hard

No one actively destroyed the ring in the film either, you dolt. Frodo bitched out.

>Lena Dunham as Luthien

What? Can ordinary people not read?

>Besides, there have been literally no black actors in any of the films, except for maybe the orcs.
Gondorians were dark skinned.

I will be disturbed if they do this. Maybe I'm some racist Fuck or whatever, but Tolkien made an anglo-saxon story. There's no room for black here, because the appareance of protag is part of the culture/theme/environment, as is architecture or dialects.
I would react the same for an egyptian or asian or subsaharian epic. That's part of the dream, and altering it for the sake of modern politic makes me really sad.
And god knows Tolkien wasn't racist.

war ready
waaar reeeaaadi

the state of art in modern cuckistan

It changes nothing about the original book(s) so I don't care at all. Adaptions beyond the Rankin Bass ones were absolute garbage. I will still have my books.

Perhaps we should sperg out like /pol/ retards when a black guy was in a LotR fan-fiction video game? I mean, they complain about that but OMG JACKSON MOVIES WERE SO EPIC OMG!!!!!!!

No-one who is able to appreciate the books likes the movies as an adaptation. The two have nothing in common.

>anglo-saxon story
That's explicitly what he didn't make. He saw England as having no original folk stories of its own and I large part of that he blames on the Norman and the Germanic invasions. He is trying to invent a pre-Anglo-Saxon world for the English to have. Also you have people from the south and east who may or may not be black. If you tell any of the stories that involve them I wouldn't have a problem with black actors.

riders of rohan are based on anglo-saxons though

He also had people form the south who were loosely based off of North African and Middle Eastern people, it doesn't make it a Middle Eastern story. He intentionally wrote the books with the Shire being a sort of a stand in for England. The important thing to remember which most people don't is that Middle Earth isn't a fantasy world, he literally wrote it as a pre-history. It's a fantasy story that's meant to take place before our recorded history but in the exact same world. The Shire is where Britain is (also Mordor is in Turkey which I always found funny).

Just like Gondor is based on Egypt.

>most beautiful woman in the world
>5/10 on a good day and her weight in makeup
no