Well, to add a bit more...the show does make me feel like a dirty old man watching it. 
SHANNARA
- Thread starter Water Bob
- Start date
That's like saying Isaak Asimov ripped off science fiction... ^^
Sacrosanct
Legend
No, because most of Tolkien's stuff was almost identical in a lot of ways to Der Ring des Nibelungen, by Richard Wagner. A lot more similar then just "inspired by". And both had elements pulled directly from the Völsunga saga. That's just a couple examples. Tolkien was pretty much, "Let's put all these other myths and stories together into one book. I won't focus on the story part. I'm just here to write about new languages."
Ralif Redhammer
Legend
Started watching the first episode last night. Weirdly, Amazon Prime makes you buy it for $0.00 to watch it.
So far, I’m digging it, particularly how they’re really emphasizing the post-apocalyptic fantasy nature of it. And I actually like the weirdly modern-influenced costume design.
Also, is John Rhys-Davies now the first actor to have played both a dwarf and an elf?
So far, I’m digging it, particularly how they’re really emphasizing the post-apocalyptic fantasy nature of it. And I actually like the weirdly modern-influenced costume design.
Also, is John Rhys-Davies now the first actor to have played both a dwarf and an elf?
Which is why I've always found The Sword of Shannara so much more easily read than Lord of the Rings. It's like Terry Brooks said, "Hey, this Tolkien stuff is pretty cool, but the writing is about as inspired as an encyclopedia. What would happen if the work were written with an emphasis on dramatic story telling?" And, boom, we got The Sword of Shannara.
I, in no way, want to diminish Tolkien's achievement. I respect his world-building. And, his story is amazing. It's just that I've always found it hard to read. To this day, I haven't read it, and I've tried about five times (always losing interest).
But, The Sword of Shannara, I've read two or three times, and it remains a favorite fantasy book.
Mark CMG
Creative Mountain Games
Tolkien's work was written in a particular literary style to evoke folklore and legend. Arguing that Brooks simply updated the style for his more modern audience, an audience that found Tolkien's style to be a stumbling block, and then arguing that the modernized language used in the television production's script isn't true to Brooks's work, seems inconsistent. 
Last edited:
I watched the first episode up to the pretty damn lovely infodump-credits... which is when my wife came in & I switched to something she would a) also enjoy and b) not mock. I'll finish it tonight (after she goes to bed).
My initial impressions are "Lululemon Elves!", "Mossy Space Needle!", & "More Post-Apocalypse Games!". That said, it all kinda worked. Will keep watching.
My initial impressions are "Lululemon Elves!", "Mossy Space Needle!", & "More Post-Apocalypse Games!". That said, it all kinda worked. Will keep watching.
HardcoreDandDGirl
First Post
I liked it.
I would be happier if the 'rovers' actors and actresses all were told not to take a shower during filming, and maybe dirty up the cloths...
I would be happier if the 'rovers' actors and actresses all were told not to take a shower during filming, and maybe dirty up the cloths...
Ryujin
Legend
It's pop fantasy. All the grass is manicured to golf green specs and the highwaymen smell of lavender.
Still, no, even though that's not what you said in your last post. "Der Ring der Nibelungen" is neither folklore nor mythology. It's a musical cycle loosely based on a mix of sources, most notably the Nibelungenlied.
Note that I'm not trying to defend a position of 'Tolkien's work was totally original', I'm just objecting to your line of argument and choice of terms.
You simply cannot compare what Terry Brooks did with his Shannara cycle to Tolkien's approach. About the only thing in common is that they both ended up writing novels.
Similar Threads
