[+] The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power - SPOILERS ALLOWED

[ART!]

don't mean to be condescending but citation please all I'm finding is the quote from Varerity's interview. This seems to be the most in-depth info I can find Lord of The Rings and the Complicated World of Tolkien's Posthumous Work

full quote

I heard this on one of Corey Olsen's (aka "the Tolkien Professor") podcasts. He who was one of a select few social media Tolkien fandom people who Amazon flew to London to meet the showrunners. So, I don't have a text citation for you.

My understanding is that if, for instance, they wanted to reference (or maybe even briefly include in a scene or more?) a character who is not part of the rights they purchased, they could theoretically work with the estate to gain specific, limited use of that character.

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

My only worry are the very strong teenage romance syndrome vibes from what we've seen. Or maybe the actors and play styles just looks that way because I'm old.

But if they can avoid that I will probably enjoy the show for what it hopefully will be - fun action and drama with a Tolkienesque framing, rather than an exercise in academically correct Tolkien interpretation.

 

[Urriak]

But those are two very different things. House of the Dragon has the creator of the world and stories alive for consultation - and really, more than that (not sure if he's writing any of it, like he did GoT).

But sure, we can quibble technical definitions of the term "fan fiction." But whether or not I'm using the term correctly, my point was that Rings of Power feels to me a lot further away from Tolkien than Jackson's LotR. But only time will tell, and I'm sure people will have different views.

I'll use a different example then... The Two Towers, specifically the Battle for Helm's Deep. In the movie, the battle is about 40 minutes long, a significant chunk of the movie. In the book, I think the battle is 4 pages long?

Christopher Tolkien said the movie "Eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people 15 to 25." He's probably mostly right considering that the whole point of the books is describing how horrible war is, and the movies definitely glorify war.

Anyway, if the Jackson movies aren't fan-fiction, then I don't see why Rings of Power is either.

 

[Ryujin]

I'll use a different example then... The Two Towers, specifically the Battle for Helm's Deep. In the movie, the battle is about 40 minutes long, a significant chunk of the movie. In the book, I think the battle is 4 pages long?

Christopher Tolkien said the movie "Eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people 15 to 25." He's probably mostly right considering that the whole point of the books is describing how horrible war is, and the movies definitely glorify war.

Anyway, if the Jackson movies aren't fan-fiction, then I don't see why Rings of Power is either.

Do you know if he said anything about "The Taming of the Shire" being left out? To me that's more egregious than playing on the action, in a book that's largely about the battle between good and evil. Still enjoyed the movies, but I missed that epilogue.

 

[Mercurius]

I'll use a different example then... The Two Towers, specifically the Battle for Helm's Deep. In the movie, the battle is about 40 minutes long, a significant chunk of the movie. In the book, I think the battle is 4 pages long?

Christopher Tolkien said the movie "Eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people 15 to 25." He's probably mostly right considering that the whole point of the books is describing how horrible war is, and the movies definitely glorify war.

Anyway, if the Jackson movies aren't fan-fiction, then I don't see why Rings of Power is either.

It is a spectrum, not either/or. I suspect Rings of Power is further along towards fan fiction than the Jackson films, but obviously don't know yet. But sure, there were definitely "fan-fictiony" elements to the Jackson films, and certainly as CT said, it was "Hollywoodized." But the overall tone and themes were pretty close--or as close as could be reasonably expected--considering.

I'm hoping CT never saw the Hobbit films! If he thought the LotR films "eviscerated" the book, I don't know what sort of gruesome torture he would have imagined for the Hobbit films that surpasses disembowelment.

 

[Mercurius]

Do you know if he said anything about "The Taming of the Shire" being left out? To me that's more egregious than playing on the action, in a book that's largely about the battle between good and evil. Still enjoyed the movies, but I missed that epilogue.

Not to mention the Barrow-downs, Tom Bombadil, and Radagast. I think all of these--including Taming of the Shire--made sense from a film-making point of view (EDIT for clarification: it makes sense why Jackson did not include them). Certainly they are tangential, even if Taming of the Shire elaborated on his themes around evil and the fact that even the Shire wasn't safe from it. But that was at least implied by Frodo's visions of the Shire burning.

Tom Bombadil is interesting, because from a purely storytelling perspective--especially Hollywood-style and convention plotting--it is a completely unnecessary tangent. But there's also an argument that Bombadil is crucial to the identity of Middle-earth, and as about as "Tolkienish" as anything in the story.

 

[Ryujin]

Not to mention the Barrow-downs, Tom Bombadil, and Radagast. I think all of these--including Taming of the Shire--made sense from a film-making point of view. Certainly they are tangential, even if Taming of the Shire elaborated on his themes around evil and the fact that even the Shire wasn't safe from it. But that was at least implied by Frodo's visions of the Shire burning.

Tom Bombadil is interesting, because from a purely storytelling perspective--especially Hollywood-style and convention plotting--it is a completely unnecessary tangent. But there's also an argument that Bombadil is crucial to the identity of Middle-earth, and as about as "Tolkienish" as anything in the story.

Given the stories were written for his children and that the final chapter is about the growth to maturity, I'd say it being missing is a heavier hit to the story than either The Barrow Downs or Bombadil. Certainly there is a lessong to be learnt about greed, in the Barrow Downs, a lesson that my players in my ICE campaign learnt the hard way.

 

[Urriak]

Do you know if he said anything about "The Taming of the Shire" being left out? To me that's more egregious than playing on the action, in a book that's largely about the battle between good and evil. Still enjoyed the movies, but I missed that epilogue.

Not that I've seen, that CT quote isn't even specifically about Helm's Deep but more generally about the Jackson trilogy's action-film style.

It is a spectrum, not either/or. I suspect Rings of Power is further along towards fan fiction than the Jackson films, but obviously don't know yet. But sure, there were definitely "fan-fictiony" elements to the Jackson films, and certainly as CT said, it was "Hollywoodized." But the overall tone and themes were pretty close--or as close as could be reasonably expected--considering.

I'm hoping CT never saw the Hobbit films! If he thought the LotR films "eviscerated" the book, I don't know what sort of gruesome torture he would have imagined for the Hobbit films that surpasses disembowelment.

I really do think it is an either/or. The definition of fan fiction is "is fictional writing written in an amateur capacity by fans, unauthorized by, but based on an existing work of fiction." By that metric, Rings of Power isn't fan-fiction; it's not written or created by amateurs, and it very much is authorized by the existing work of fiction (they have the license rights).

Anyway, the fan-fiction criticism seems to mostly be some justification for "I don't like it." Which is fine, but just say that. I doubt this show is going to please as many people as the Jackson trilogy, it's kind of iconic (and even Jackson couldn't replicate that with the Hobbit).

 

[Mercurius]

Given the stories were written for his children and that the final chapter is about the growth to maturity, I'd say it being missing is a heavier hit to the story than either The Barrow Downs or Bombadil. Certainly there is a lessong to be learnt about greed, in the Barrow Downs, a lesson that my players in my ICE campaign learnt the hard way.

Not to nit-pick, but the LotR wasn't written for his children. The Hobbit was, and then word got around Oxford and people (the other Inklings) encouraged him to publish.

LotR was written by request from his publisher, originally Unwin, after the success of the Hobbit, and at first only because he wanted them to publish the Silmarillion, so it was a package deal ("we'll publish the Silmarillion, if you write a sequel to the Hobbit"). LotR took on a life of its own, and once Unwin saw the Silmarillion they balked.

That said, I do believe that Christopher Tolkien was his first reader of the LotR, and an important source of feedback.

 

[Mercurius]

Not that I've seen, that CT quote isn't even specifically about Helm's Deep but more generally about the Jackson trilogy's action-film style.



I really do think it is an either/or. The definition of fan fiction is "is fictional writing written in an amateur capacity by fans, unauthorized by, but based on an existing work of fiction." By that metric, Rings of Power isn't fan-fiction; it's not written or created by amateurs, and it very much is authorized by the existing work of fiction (they have the license rights).

Anyway, the fan-fiction criticism seems to mostly be some justification for "I don't like it." Which is fine, but just say that. I doubt this show is going to please as many people as the Jackson trilogy, it's kind of iconic (and even Jackson couldn't replicate that with the Hobbit).

It depends upon how you use the term. I'm using it as a spectrum, because that's how I see it. But I tend to dislike "either/orism" and find that most things exist on spectrums of one kind or another. But if you'd prefer, ignore the term "fan faction" and think more in terms of the degree to which it adheres to the spirit and themes of Tolkien as he intended them.

p.s. Please don't make assumptions as to why I see it as more fan-fictiony than LotR! That's just my impression. And more importantly, none of us know whether we're going to like it or not until we actually see it! All we have to go on is a few teasers/trailers.