Yes, but the stabbing takes place on top of Isengard whereas the book puts it at the end of "the scouring of the shire." So, the movies fail again, but, we're not having a problem with that....
Of course if we did that JRRT couldn't have written in the first place, as his works are derivative of several works of older lore, but hey, we'll have to take the good with the bad.
That's like saying your parents never had any rights to you as a child because, after all, you're made of the same stuff all other humans have been for eons. No, your parents uniquely made you, and therefore, had a right to raise and make decisions on your upbringing.
Yes, Tolkien 'borrowed' the stuffs of lore, but he so uniquely put it into a world, and such a unique world, that no one else has come close. As one friend told me, "when reading fantasy, never start with Tolkien." Why? Because you realize that all the rest is a rip off of him.
Tolkien's work is not even just another Dune or Star Wars or anything of the sort. Tolkien, as they say, wrote a good story, everyone else makes a stab at it.
Consider: how many authors create a language -- a full language -- for their work? Tolkien made five. How many develope an entire chronological cosmology -- from beginning to ending. How many create an entire mythos for this world? How many write an extremely detailed history from first created of a race until its end? How many do this for multiple races: dwarfs, elves, humans. Mind you, after all of this, almost as an after thought, he wrote LoTR -- as a filler for his world.
Now, tell me, wtf does this have to do with a game by the same name? Absolutely positively nothing.
The danger is this: every person or child who is introduced to probably the greatest story ever conceived and delivered will come into it... in a game....
I would think Tolkien would have been very happy having others take his work, build on it and express it in their own ways and in different mediums.
That thought would be correct except he specifically stated only his son, Christopher, could do so.
Unlike Lucas who has no problem with others dabbling in SW mythos, even directing and writing, etc., Tolkien was extremely picky and protective of his work. This is a well-known fact.
The risk, you see, is that Arda -- Tolkien's greater world -- is at risk in losing its true meaning. This Tolkien knew and this he sought to prevent. Unlike Mickey Mouse, there is no way to stop it becoming a... game....
I never claimed my point was unique. And, to argue against my own point, removing Bombadil was necessary to the movie, yet I think Tolkien -- as Tolkien biographer Michael White would agree -- would have hated the movies.
Bombadil was entirely unnecessary to the movies, but entirely necessary to Arda, to the greater telling of the cosmos JRRT created.
I also invite you to watch as many interviews with Peter Jackson & co. as possible. Very little tribute given to Tolkien. About the only person who rightly mentions him, often, is Christopher Lee....
Also, Jackson, 'bought-off,' the official Tolkien fan club by putting their names in the credits at the end of the last movie.
no one is turning in their grave as a result of this game's launch.
Except for JRRT you mean.
I can't wait to be duel-spammed at Tom Bombadil's house....
As a purist who first ventured on to news groups nearly 20 years ago for the simple fact of discussing with other fans the work of Tolkien, I find an official game in the MMOG genre appauling.
I am sure this will get labeled flamebait or troll, but it was one thing when everyone was ripping on the professor and giving no credit. This is kicking in the front door. Whereas some art can be separated from the creator, this simply isn't so with the work of JRRT. The two are one IMO, and homage should be paid. Whereas the movies did work, there was damage done by leaving out such things as Bombadil, and if you don't understand that, then you are not a true fan.
Thus the continued cheapening of Arda continues, but, it can't be any worse than the Frodo in the happy meal my daughter got during the movie releases. Ah, thick irony....
Just watched the episode of "20th Century Battles" where they covered the gulf war. You do realize that Sadam amassed his armor on the southern border of Kuwait, poised to take saudi arabia? The Saudis did not have the military to take him on. Sadam was about to control 50% of all oil in the world if he attacked. The coalation that entered, by request/permission of the saudis, was nearly global. To pin the gulf war on bush sr is rather narrow-sighted in light of all of that.
As far as diplomacy, regardless of how badly things have been handled by this administration, not all "nice guy" diplomacy makes sense. It made absolutely no sense prior to ww2 with all the efforts of neville chamberlain. His "let's not fight" diplomacy nearly handed hitler the world. Mind you, I'm not comparing the present situation to that, just rebutting your remark regarding "playing nice." There also comes a time to take the gloves off.
...he went out on top!?!?!? It's well known that the show was thriving when it ended. I didn't think this was a mathmatical comparison of years shows run. The parent's post was about the fact that british shows tend to end when they are doing great and american shows do the opposite.
I disagree. Some things are the result of sheer idiocy. Allowing the president to ride through town in a convertible: dumb. Allowing levees to deteriorate when people living just beneath them are reporting seepage in their yards, and when there are discovery channel shows depicting the impact of a hurricane some 10 years prior to the event: dumb. Not listening or heeding the warning from think-tank groups regarding cockpit doors in passenger planes: dumb. Yes, there were warnings given and they were not heeded.
Just because something happened doesn't mean it could not have been prevented. That's flawed logic.
Failure to imagine? I say failure of bureaucracy maybe. More than anything, just stupid....
Ah, Scott Jennings, AKA, Lumthemad. I so enjoyed his stuff during the heyday of eq1. He is, and forever will be, the gossip columnist of mmogs. But, I do feel my that my bean juice just spilled over into my applie pie when I see this crap on my fav tech/geek site,/.....
I am confused over the "dramatization" quote since the bbc seems to link that to the modern Christopher quote, but perhaps he was quoting his father.... Also, to your point, as I mentioned, Tolkien sold the film rights in the late 1960s. I am arguing your point in case you don't follow.
Did Tolkien OK a possible film? Yes. Would Tolkien have approved of THE films? Most likely, no.
If I could go back I would have not included the part about the film at all, especially since I was wrong in that Tolkien never said it should not be dramatized (I misunderstood the "does not dramatize"). Everyone is hung-up on that. The point still stands, as any avid fan knows, that JRRT would most likely not approve of this game (Tolkien biographer Michael White stated he would have hated the movies). This really isn't hard to figure out....
It appears Christopher had no opinion on the movies. Michael White, Tolkien biographer, stated Tolkien would have hated the films. However, Tolkien did apparently sell the film rights for 10,000 pounds in 1969:
Christopher apparently made the statement that it was not something that could properly be dramatized.
I think you have good points, and are not incorrect. I appreciate your endeavors. However, overall, I think I cannot withdraw my original belief that Tolkien would have not approved of the films. My statement that he specifically stated the films should not be was in error otherwise.
Your post looks good, and is forcing me to think, but I will reserve agreement until I can learn more. It's been several years since I read the letters myself. Still, my overall impression from reading many things from Tolkien is that he was against a dramatization. Simply take into account his pickiness over the very publishing....
Christopher's ambivalence was well-known, but he didn't write the books, so who cares what he thinks.
Slashdot Mirror
you just got me all excited....
Yes, but the stabbing takes place on top of Isengard whereas the book puts it at the end of "the scouring of the shire." So, the movies fail again, but, we're not having a problem with that....
Of course if we did that JRRT couldn't have written in the first place, as his works are derivative of several works of older lore, but hey, we'll have to take the good with the bad.
... in a game....
That's like saying your parents never had any rights to you as a child because, after all, you're made of the same stuff all other humans have been for eons. No, your parents uniquely made you, and therefore, had a right to raise and make decisions on your upbringing.
Yes, Tolkien 'borrowed' the stuffs of lore, but he so uniquely put it into a world, and such a unique world, that no one else has come close. As one friend told me, "when reading fantasy, never start with Tolkien." Why? Because you realize that all the rest is a rip off of him.
Tolkien's work is not even just another Dune or Star Wars or anything of the sort. Tolkien, as they say, wrote a good story, everyone else makes a stab at it.
Consider: how many authors create a language -- a full language -- for their work? Tolkien made five. How many develope an entire chronological cosmology -- from beginning to ending. How many create an entire mythos for this world? How many write an extremely detailed history from first created of a race until its end? How many do this for multiple races: dwarfs, elves, humans. Mind you, after all of this, almost as an after thought, he wrote LoTR -- as a filler for his world.
Now, tell me, wtf does this have to do with a game by the same name? Absolutely positively nothing.
The danger is this: every person or child who is introduced to probably the greatest story ever conceived and delivered will come into it
Yes, I am a biased fanboy....
20 years ago? I need a life right now....
then dropped like a red hot palantir....
lol! gold....
I would think Tolkien would have been very happy having others take his work, build on it and express it in their own ways and in different mediums.
... game....
That thought would be correct except he specifically stated only his son, Christopher, could do so.
Unlike Lucas who has no problem with others dabbling in SW mythos, even directing and writing, etc., Tolkien was extremely picky and protective of his work. This is a well-known fact.
The risk, you see, is that Arda -- Tolkien's greater world -- is at risk in losing its true meaning. This Tolkien knew and this he sought to prevent. Unlike Mickey Mouse, there is no way to stop it becoming a
I never claimed my point was unique. And, to argue against my own point, removing Bombadil was necessary to the movie, yet I think Tolkien -- as Tolkien biographer Michael White would agree -- would have hated the movies.
Bombadil was entirely unnecessary to the movies, but entirely necessary to Arda, to the greater telling of the cosmos JRRT created.
I also invite you to watch as many interviews with Peter Jackson & co. as possible. Very little tribute given to Tolkien. About the only person who rightly mentions him, often, is Christopher Lee....
Also, Jackson, 'bought-off,' the official Tolkien fan club by putting their names in the credits at the end of the last movie.
no one is turning in their grave as a result of this game's launch.
Except for JRRT you mean.
I can't wait to be duel-spammed at Tom Bombadil's house....
As a purist who first ventured on to news groups nearly 20 years ago for the simple fact of discussing with other fans the work of Tolkien, I find an official game in the MMOG genre appauling.
I am sure this will get labeled flamebait or troll, but it was one thing when everyone was ripping on the professor and giving no credit. This is kicking in the front door. Whereas some art can be separated from the creator, this simply isn't so with the work of JRRT. The two are one IMO, and homage should be paid. Whereas the movies did work, there was damage done by leaving out such things as Bombadil, and if you don't understand that, then you are not a true fan.
Thus the continued cheapening of Arda continues, but, it can't be any worse than the Frodo in the happy meal my daughter got during the movie releases. Ah, thick irony....
he enable his addin for all versions of VS.... they would never explain specifically which clause in the license was being violate....
... my hed asplode.
ah
John Carmack, and id software, will go down in video game history as one of the most original, and influential, of the era -- if not of all time....
Joe Smith
IT Director
Just watched the episode of "20th Century Battles" where they covered the gulf war. You do realize that Sadam amassed his armor on the southern border of Kuwait, poised to take saudi arabia? The Saudis did not have the military to take him on. Sadam was about to control 50% of all oil in the world if he attacked. The coalation that entered, by request/permission of the saudis, was nearly global. To pin the gulf war on bush sr is rather narrow-sighted in light of all of that.
As far as diplomacy, regardless of how badly things have been handled by this administration, not all "nice guy" diplomacy makes sense. It made absolutely no sense prior to ww2 with all the efforts of neville chamberlain. His "let's not fight" diplomacy nearly handed hitler the world. Mind you, I'm not comparing the present situation to that, just rebutting your remark regarding "playing nice." There also comes a time to take the gloves off.
Knowing the difference, is, of course, key....
'And we love them because they're all customers!' said Jobs -- as Gates drank a glass of water....
...he went out on top!?!?!? It's well known that the show was thriving when it ended. I didn't think this was a mathmatical comparison of years shows run. The parent's post was about the fact that british shows tend to end when they are doing great and american shows do the opposite.
I hate to be critical, but the "always leave 'em wantin' more" is not British. If anything, that's a Hollywood adage. Seinfeld ring a bell?
The brits deserve credit for a lot of things, but come on....
I disagree. Some things are the result of sheer idiocy. Allowing the president to ride through town in a convertible: dumb. Allowing levees to deteriorate when people living just beneath them are reporting seepage in their yards, and when there are discovery channel shows depicting the impact of a hurricane some 10 years prior to the event: dumb. Not listening or heeding the warning from think-tank groups regarding cockpit doors in passenger planes: dumb. Yes, there were warnings given and they were not heeded.
Just because something happened doesn't mean it could not have been prevented. That's flawed logic.
Failure to imagine? I say failure of bureaucracy maybe. More than anything, just stupid....
But like rearing a child....
He wants to rear a child!
cik!
So, helium is the brake and hydrogen is the gas pedal. Who's driving?
Lol.
Well said....
Ah, Scott Jennings, AKA, Lumthemad. I so enjoyed his stuff during the heyday of eq1. He is, and forever will be, the gossip columnist of mmogs. But, I do feel my that my bean juice just spilled over into my applie pie when I see this crap on my fav tech/geek site, /. ....
See my reply here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=236533&cid=193 15817
I am confused over the "dramatization" quote since the bbc seems to link that to the modern Christopher quote, but perhaps he was quoting his father.... Also, to your point, as I mentioned, Tolkien sold the film rights in the late 1960s. I am arguing your point in case you don't follow.
Did Tolkien OK a possible film? Yes. Would Tolkien have approved of THE films? Most likely, no.
If I could go back I would have not included the part about the film at all, especially since I was wrong in that Tolkien never said it should not be dramatized (I misunderstood the "does not dramatize"). Everyone is hung-up on that. The point still stands, as any avid fan knows, that JRRT would most likely not approve of this game (Tolkien biographer Michael White stated he would have hated the movies). This really isn't hard to figure out....
It appears Christopher had no opinion on the movies. Michael White, Tolkien biographer, stated Tolkien would have hated the films. However, Tolkien did apparently sell the film rights for 10,000 pounds in 1969:
s tm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1700458.
Christopher apparently made the statement that it was not something that could properly be dramatized.
I think you have good points, and are not incorrect. I appreciate your endeavors. However, overall, I think I cannot withdraw my original belief that Tolkien would have not approved of the films. My statement that he specifically stated the films should not be was in error otherwise.
you misspelled "noob."
Your post looks good, and is forcing me to think, but I will reserve agreement until I can learn more. It's been several years since I read the letters myself. Still, my overall impression from reading many things from Tolkien is that he was against a dramatization. Simply take into account his pickiness over the very publishing....
Christopher's ambivalence was well-known, but he didn't write the books, so who cares what he thinks.
JRRT cared what Christopher thought....
Yes. I have a child. You?