Our Sponsor Sideshow Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: TV Discussion: The Rings of Power: It's not Tolkien - on two levels: Edit Log



Michelle Johnston
Mithlond


Nov 25 2024, 5:38am


Views: 5240
It's not Tolkien - on two levels


In Reply To
I believe that very few people knowledgeable about drama would agree with such an opinion. Arguing that any writer of an adaptation is inferior to Tolkien and hence that any change or addition whatsoever is automatically "negative" elevates the author to a godlike status, and the creators of an an adaptation thus commit the crime of Lèse-majesté. This logic implies that there is no real need for a screenwriter, and certainly no need for creativity: all that a writer of an adaptation need do is copy passages from a book, making sure that the adaptation follows the book word for word.


There was a discussion about this back in the day concerning The Hobbit movies. Someone asked whether it would be better to film the book completely as written, page by page, with no additions or changes. My opinion was no: what would be the point of watching the resulting movie? You would know everything about the movie in advance, with no chance for surprises or appreciation of creative thought.


In the case of The Rings of Power, as many have pointed out, there is no "story" to follow, in that the source material comprises a few short paragraphs and a timeline of major events: no plots, no drama, and no dialog. Therefore, the worth of the adaptation lies in whether the writers can "breathe life" into this outline in a way that is both creative and that follows the themes and major events of the original material. The additions should add something that enhances the story. In ROP, an example would be Galadriel's reaction to her beloved brother being killed "in a dark place by agents of Sauron". The source material has nothing whatsoever to say about this; the showrunners used this gap as a foundation for her character arc, where her brother's death led to an obsession with finding Sauron.


The additions to the story should also show some literary sophistication, not simply use the common cliches that often dominate television screenwriting. For the Sauron story, for example, the writers have drawn on themes from Milton's Paradise Lost and Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. Some may again interpret this as Lèse-majesté, but the story that they presented is an interesting take on the character and his history. Is this "fanfic"? Yes, in the sense that Paradise Lost is, as someone recently pointed out, fanfic based on the Bible.

In Reply To
It makes no sense for the “writer” to opt for radical reinvention when they are nowhere near the calibre of JRRT. They don’t know better than him, so any change can only be negative.



This was an excellent retort. This latest round of conversation helps me to reflect on two types of, its not Tolkien criticism. I would characterise it as :-

1) Changes to the overall story, which is the consequence of a lack of detail and permission. The former is a huge challenge for ROP. Anything written in, is described as Fan Fiction. Words are powerful, it's a reality but it gets used as a put down, particularly by people who believe, incredulously to my mind, that no additional writing should have been attempted.

2) The presentation of character.

I can understand why the radical expression of the second age is not acceptable to book lovers of the appendices and possibly the Akallebeth. One either enjoys the benefits of contraction and close up inspection and engagement or one does not. I am by nature a disrupter so I like disruptive art, a more traditionalist would feel uneasy.

The other is this presentation of book individuals particularly Galadriel, Gandalf, Sauron, Elrond and Celebrimbor, the two Durin's and at a lower level of involvement A-P., Miriel, Elendil and Isildur. How we look at them through anything up to fifty years of acquaintance is highly personal. My difficulties were Isildur and Elrond in S1. On the question of fidelity, Noria's excellent post reflects on how they got where they did.

I have thoroughly enjoyed the amplification of all of them particularly the clever use of the professor's conjectures on Galadriel and Annatar and Celebrimbor and the Durin's have been axe-proof. If any of them have fallen it's because of the writing.

In terms of fan fiction I would not be without Arondir, Nori and the Rhun contingent of dark magic.

My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.

(This post was edited by Michelle Johnston on Nov 25 2024, 5:40am)


Edit Log:
Post edited by Michelle Johnston (Mithlond) on Nov 25 2024, 5:40am


Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.