Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles 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
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
fan fiction points of view and why we shouldn't condemn PJ&co
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Cirashala
Grey Havens


Jan 18 2014, 7:39am

Post #1 of 34 (1011 views)
Shortcut
fan fiction points of view and why we shouldn't condemn PJ&co Can't Post

http://www.newstatesman.com/...-overzealous-fanbase

This involves Sherlock as an example, but is an excellent reason why "fan fiction" is MUCH older than people would think, and why we shouldn't, to quote Treebeard, be "so hasty" in condemning PJ&co for their adaptation of The Hobbit.

I found it an interesting read, and an interesting take on fan fiction that presents facts, rather than opinions.

I am a fan fiction writer, and have posted a story in fan art (along with an additional one in links in some replies). I sometimes have a hard time with how the words "fan fiction" are used derisively or with scorn to address the Hobbit movies and the additions/alterations that PJ&co did.

Hopefully this will at least aid understanding in their endeavor Smile



jtarkey
Rohan


Jan 18 2014, 12:31pm

Post #2 of 34 (576 views)
Shortcut
But "fan fiction" isn't really the problem [In reply to] Can't Post

It's the execution.

The things that PJ and Co. have invented for this trilogy have lacked the depth and consistency of the original source material. It just doesn't blend well.

I'm all for certain aspects of the story being altered for the sake of a better cinematic adaptation. But when changes or additions are made for other reasons, it kind of bothers me.

This is the big difference between the way LOTR was adapted vs. The Hobbit

I don't condemn PJ for this, I just think he's second guessing himself in the wake of his own monumental trilogy that came before. Totally understandable, but I don't think it can be washed away with excuses and rationalizations.

.

"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"

^^^ That unnecessary apostrophe and "e" is due to the leaf itself. And this part of the signature was documented quite some time after the effect had worn off.

(This post was edited by jtarkey on Jan 18 2014, 12:34pm)


dormouse
Half-elven


Jan 18 2014, 2:11pm

Post #3 of 34 (526 views)
Shortcut
Well.... [In reply to] Can't Post

It would be a fair point, but what you say raises two questions...

First, what makes you think that changes or additions have been made for some reason other than making a better adaptation? Seems to me that everything they've done to the story has been done to make what they believe is a better cinema adaptation. Whether it IS better or not is open to debate, of course, but I can't see that they have any other motivation. They want to make the best film(s) they possibly can.

Second, what excuses and rationalisations? If I say that I think this is a good adaptation and that, apart from a few minor gripes, the changes and additions are excellent, very well thought-out and in keeping with Tolkien, I'm not excusing or rationalising anything. Just saying what I think. A person only makes excuses/rationalises something when they know deep-down it's wrong.
I don't accept that this adaptation is wrong, and I know I'm not the only one here who feels that way. It's different. Some aspects of it certainly aren't what I was expecting. But for me, it's not wrong.


Glorfindela
Valinor


Jan 18 2014, 2:14pm

Post #4 of 34 (497 views)
Shortcut
I think you've hit the nail on the head here, when it comes to DoS. [In reply to] Can't Post

For myself, I was on the whole very happy with AUJ. For me, it had a 'heart', and emotional moments that tugged at my heart strings. The characterisations of Thorin, Bilbo and Gandalf in particular were marvellous, and made me love those characters. Even the music had a grandeur about it, and themes like the Misty Mountains one, and the odd slight reference to LOTR themes, helped to give the film a cohesion.

DoS, although visually breathtaking in the depiction of places such as Beorn's hall, Thranduil's realm, Lake-town, Mirkwood (with spiders), Erebor (complete with gold and Smaug), and of characters such as Beorn, Thranduil and Bard, had far less 'heart' as far as I was concerned.

The additions of new, non-canon characters – particularly a very badly depicted Legolas, both visually and as a character – added nothing to the story and indeed, took away from it. I believe footage from sequences such as the one with Beorn, a really iconic character from The Hobbit, was lost due to the inexplicable wish of someone to include banal made-up action sequences of pointless Orc attacks.

The marketing for the film during most of 2013 was also truly dreadful, focusing on two made-up, non-canon characters that many people cared nothing about – as if Warner Bros. desired to make the story into something that would fit in with Marvel comic-book films.

At the end of the day, I believe the decisions that were taken in the above respects have impacted negatively on the profitability of the film (and once again, viewers have disagreed with the critics). Sure, factors like the very cold weather in the United States, and the floods in south-east England, have been blamed for the fall in box-office numbers, but I believe it is the loss of the 'heart' of the first film that is responsible.

It's a great shame, because it could have been so good, what with the brilliant actors and wonderful visuals that feature in these films.

This is from someone who doesn't look at the LOTR films with rose-tinted glasses. I believe there was plenty that was 'wrong' with those films, too, not the least the poor acting in some places. However, for the most part these films at least stuck loosely to the main story, and non-canon characters were certainly not given an importance that superseded or equalled that of canon ones.


In Reply To
It's the execution.

The things that PJ and Co. have invented for this trilogy have lacked the depth and consistency of the original source material. It just doesn't blend well.

I'm all for certain aspects of the story being altered for the sake of a better cinematic adaptation. But when changes or additions are made for other reasons, it kind of bothers me.



tsmith675
Gondor


Jan 18 2014, 2:16pm

Post #5 of 34 (465 views)
Shortcut
The way I see it, [In reply to] Can't Post

You can't judge the depth and consistency of the changes until you've seen the entire trilogy and see where some of the changes take the characters and the story.

"This day we FIGHT!"


tsmith675
Gondor


Jan 18 2014, 2:25pm

Post #6 of 34 (476 views)
Shortcut
Actually, for me it's the opposite. [In reply to] Can't Post

I like AUJ a lot, but for me it didn't have very many emotional moments. Yeah, I was emotional at first to be back in Middle-earth. But actual emotional moments in the film, only a couple. When Thorin accepted Bilbo and when we got to see pity stay Bilbo's hand in killing Gollum were the only two points that felt real emotion. Whereas, in DoS, I felt much more emotion in more points of the story, ie. when they first see the Lonely Mountain, when they're on the doorstep, when Bilbo his conversation with Balin before going in, when they first open the door to the Mountain, Balin talking to Thorin about Bilbo, Bard and the prophecy, and more. And I care, now, more about all of the characters than I did in AUJ. For me at least, DoS hit my emotions more than AUJ.

"This day we FIGHT!"


Glorfindela
Valinor


Jan 18 2014, 3:07pm

Post #7 of 34 (429 views)
Shortcut
Yes, I like those moments in DoS, but they were too few and too short, in my view. [In reply to] Can't Post

When it came to AUJ, I felt emotion, for example, in the Bag End sequence, when the Dwarves were singing and Bilbo was listening (beautifully done); when Balin was telling the story of the Battle of Moria; during the whole of the Eagles sequence (again, beautifully done). It was a much richer emotional experience for me than was DoS, and I really felt for the main characters, whose appearance in DoS was all too brief.


In Reply To
But actual emotional moments in the film, only a couple. When Thorin accepted Bilbo and when we got to see pity stay Bilbo's hand in killing Gollum were the only two points that felt real emotion. Whereas, in DoS, I felt much more emotion in more points of the story, ie. when they first see the Lonely Mountain, when they're on the doorstep, when Bilbo his conversation with Balin before going in, when they first open the door to the Mountain, Balin talking to Thorin about Bilbo, Bard and the prophecy, and more. And I care, now, more about all of the characters than I did in AUJ. For me at least, DoS hit my emotions more than AUJ.



Avandel
Valinor

Jan 18 2014, 3:22pm

Post #8 of 34 (438 views)
Shortcut
myths and stories change in the telling [In reply to] Can't Post

Thank you for the link, it was an interesting read and makes some good points. As far as PJ & co. changing things up, IMO I love what he did to bring the Hobbit to screen, and as I watch the Appendices I appreciate even more the thoughtfulness and work that went into these movies, and the huge effort that went on re the decisions that were made.

I'm less tolerant with LOTR as I didn't think certain things needed to be done, but it's a masterpiece of work in its own right.

As an aside, certainly people re-telling an original work could be called "fan fiction" vs. adapting, I suppose. But yes, the term fan fiction is often a negative term, and I think with justification in that with the rise of "vanity publishing" and just the ability to slap whatever you like on the Internet, as a reader there is more junk out there than ever. And a lot IS junk (to be polite). Occasionally a really great author bursts forth out of this turbid sea, but a lot of it is like watching the people bumped from the American Idol auditions - dreadful stuff, amateur, maudlin, and worse. And like PJ & co. (pros) know, once you stick your work out there, just like professional writers, a fan fiction writer may be judged pretty harshly as the woman in this article was, whose work was read for amusement.


Rowan Greene
Lorien


Jan 18 2014, 3:46pm

Post #9 of 34 (428 views)
Shortcut
I agree with you and the quoted poster... [In reply to] Can't Post

First, I'm not a fan of "fan fiction." I'll leave it at that because I don't want to offend anyone.

I've said it before: Perhaps my biggest issue with DoS was the inclusion of a fabricated Mary Sue character AND the pointless Twilight-esque love triangle that felt like sloppy "fan fiction" shoehorned into the script. (As in her story arc is a fan's construct which felt incongruous with Tolkien's vision.) For me, Tauriel’s story arc added nothing to the plot and in fact, detracted from it and resulted in some unfavorable deviations from the source material. It felt contrived and forced in a way that yanked me out of the story.

I’m not suggesting a movie adaptation should (or could) mirror a book but that it should respect the author’s work and not turn it into something both unrecognizable and unpalatable.

Personally, I feel inserting fabricated (non-canon) characters into a story goes beyond what's acceptable for an adaptation, especially when these non-canon characters impact canon character story arcs (or negatively impact canon characters in general), and when accommodating them results in numerous deviations from the original source material. While it still may qualify as a loose adaptation, it doesn't honor the original source material IMO.

These elements within the TH movies smack of "fan fiction" to me because they alter the basic premise of the source material, as in they deviate from the original author’s vision. The additions feel disingenuous and detract from the heart and soul of Tolkien's masterpiece. The Hobbit's magic is in its simplicity. At its heart it's a quest and not a romping chase or a 'Romeo and Juliet' love story. (Again, IMO.)

I'm glad other viewers thoroughly enjoyed DoS. While there were a number of elements to celebrate--the beautiful landscapes, Shore's moving score, Pace's mesmerizing portrayal of Thranduil, an incredible looking dragon--there were far more things to regret, such as a hero overshadowed by superfluous additions to the plot. (Prime example: instead of showing Bilbo wandering through Thranduil's halls pilfering food, marveling at the grandeur and watching in amazement at the feasting elves as he desperately searched for a way out, we get Tauriel and Kili waxing poetic about starlight and Thranduil telling Tauriel how Legolas thought she fought well/is fond of her/and how he'd never allow the match. However touching these scenes may be for some people, they do little to advance the plot and they toss our hero to the sidelines for far too long.)

And Glorfindela, I couldn't agree more about the marketing for DoS. Bilbo, along with other canon characters, was completely overshadowed in the promo material. At one point I wondered if we'd even get an Elvenking for he was barely mentioned or shown.


In Reply To
For myself, I was on the whole very happy with AUJ. For me, it had a 'heart', and emotional moments that tugged at my heart strings. The characterisations of Thorin, Bilbo and Gandalf in particular were marvellous, and made me love those characters. Even the music had a grandeur about it, and themes like the Misty Mountains one, and the odd slight reference to LOTR themes, helped to give the film a cohesion.

DoS, although visually breathtaking in the depiction of places such as Beorn's hall, Thranduil's realm, Lake-town, Mirkwood (with spiders), Erebor (complete with gold and Smaug), and of characters such as Beorn, Thranduil and Bard, had far less 'heart' as far as I was concerned.

The additions of new, non-canon characters – particularly a very badly depicted Legolas, both visually and as a character – added nothing to the story and indeed, took away from it. I believe footage from sequences such as the one with Beorn, a really iconic character from The Hobbit, was lost due to the inexplicable wish of someone to include banal made-up action sequences of pointless Orc attacks.

The marketing for the film during most of 2013 was also truly dreadful, focusing on two made-up, non-canon characters that many people cared nothing about – as if Warner Bros. desired to make the story into something that would fit in with Marvel comic-book films.

At the end of the day, I believe the decisions that were taken in the above respects have impacted negatively on the profitability of the film (and once again, viewers have disagreed with the critics). Sure, factors like the very cold weather in the United States, and the floods in south-east England, have been blamed for the fall in box-office numbers, but I believe it is the loss of the 'heart' of the first film that is responsible.

It's a great shame, because it could have been so good, what with the brilliant actors and wonderful visuals that feature in these films.

This is from someone who doesn't look at the LOTR films with rose-tinted glasses. I believe there was plenty that was 'wrong' with those films, too, not the least the poor acting in some places. However, for the most part these films at least stuck loosely to the main story, and non-canon characters were certainly not given an importance that superseded or equalled that of canon ones.


In Reply To
It's the execution.

The things that PJ and Co. have invented for this trilogy have lacked the depth and consistency of the original source material. It just doesn't blend well.

I'm all for certain aspects of the story being altered for the sake of a better cinematic adaptation. But when changes or additions are made for other reasons, it kind of bothers me.





Noria
Rohan

Jan 18 2014, 4:03pm

Post #10 of 34 (427 views)
Shortcut
Dormouse, I agree: I like the adaptation that is DoS. [In reply to] Can't Post

I too believe that the writers of the Hobbit Movies wrote professional adaptations intended to make the best films possible, films that would reach the widest audiences possible. I don’t agree with them on every point but I’m not making excusing and rationalizing when I say that for the most part, I love what PJ has done with these movies. I think DoS is a great adaptation of Bilbo's story and am enjoying the Dol Guldur and Heirs of Durin subplots.

I neither write nor read fan fiction and have no feelings about it. But people using the term on boards such as this one appear to be doing so to denigrate the film makers and it’s starting to sound like a silly and overused cliché, just like the "Butter scraped over too much bread" thing.

As a whole, I rather like DoS more than AUJ,


Annatar598
Rohan

Jan 18 2014, 5:06pm

Post #11 of 34 (404 views)
Shortcut
Depth? What depth? [In reply to] Can't Post

There is no depth in The Hobbit. I'm talking about the book I'm currently reading to my daughter. Which is a good thing because it lets children understand the story completely and it introduces many to what is a story with a lot of detail and depth (LOTR).

The Hobbit was taught in middle school while my nephew was studying and the outline of that course was incredibly short compared to other novels the class was studying. I asked my nephews teacher why the class was spending only a week on TH and he told me it's a fairly "straightforward" story with themes that are easy to catch.

There is more depth in these films than in the book. I never had set any expectations that these movies would ever parallel anything in LOTR because the source material is devoid of thematic depth. I wasn't expecting the writers to pad the story out to an extent to make it cater to adults and children. I would've much preferred for PJ to have stayed with the rather skeletal "depth" of the source material.

We didn't really need so much seriousness here. We needed more whimsy.
More glossy fantasy. For The hobbit trilogy to bridge the LOTR is untrue to the immaturity and childishness of the book.

But since the movies have been made and all, I believe that on a comparative plane; these films are infinitely more interesting than the source material. But lost is all the luster and glam and gloss that makes The Hobbit what it truly is: a children's fantasy. We didn't need heads flying at us in 3D or Azog beheading Thror or Leogolas massacring orcs. But I guess it would have alienated audiences like the Star Wars prequels. The whole situation is a mess tbh and I don't know quite what to make of it all.


book Gandalf
Rohan


Jan 18 2014, 5:50pm

Post #12 of 34 (385 views)
Shortcut
fan fiction or just badly written [In reply to] Can't Post

lets make this comparison..

snow white and the seven dwarves, the disney cartoon is an example of taking a simple text and making a great adaption but keeping it simple yet visually stunning.

snow white and th ehuntsman, taking that simple story, expanding it for an action movie audience and padding it with more 'depth' and made upness

disneys original snow white is far more interesting in almost ever way. i think th rhobbit could have taken alot from that example

This is a serious journey, not a hobbit walking-party.


Annatar598
Rohan

Jan 18 2014, 6:03pm

Post #13 of 34 (360 views)
Shortcut
I like your thoughts but [In reply to] Can't Post

In this case, the source material (serving as basis for comparison) would be Disney's Snow White. The text itself is not so simple because it has been abridged and changed so many times in various publications.

Disney's Snow White serves to alienate audiences too. Kristen Stewart's Snow White was hyped to hell. The fight between Bilbo and her SW was neck and neck on MTV. Disney's Snow White can't get the same demographic to support it in that way. I of course, would rather watch the Disney one than see Stewart's emotionless character anytime but that doesn't apply to everyone.

There are adults who aren't big on cartoons and would ignorantly dismiss a cartoon as inferior to a live action film.

And of course, there's only so much you can accomplish on a cartoon. That medium or storytelling is simpler because it is aimed squarely at a certain demographic.


I honestly don't think there's a valid example out there for us to compare this with. We just have to live with these excellent (but shoddy adaptations) movies. These films won't likely be remade in our lifetimes so I guess it's time we put that to rest. The Hobbit was a tricky book to adapt and PJ and Co adapted it in their way. Any other filmmaker would undoubtedly make their tinkering of the story to allow for greater connectivity with the greatest trilogy of all time.


book Gandalf
Rohan


Jan 18 2014, 6:25pm

Post #14 of 34 (335 views)
Shortcut
nah [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
And of course, there's only so much you can accomplish on a cartoon. That medium or storytelling is simpler because it is aimed squarely at a certain demographic.

i think your completely wrong, id search for Hayao Miyazaki and his contemporaries.

This is a serious journey, not a hobbit walking-party.


Annatar598
Rohan

Jan 18 2014, 6:29pm

Post #15 of 34 (328 views)
Shortcut
Sorry, I was referring to Disney-like films [In reply to] Can't Post

My bad.

But an animated picture wouldn't have suited the Hobbit at all - the old cartoon wasn't that good and yet it's considered good by many.


book Gandalf
Rohan


Jan 18 2014, 6:40pm

Post #16 of 34 (320 views)
Shortcut
yes [In reply to] Can't Post

well smaug and gollum arguably the best parts being animated, i think you could have.

but the animation is neither here not there i was talking about the story mainly.

the old hobbit cartton is for me nbarely wachable, where as snow white seven dwarves is a masterpiece, its glorious, its about story, vision and creativity no the medium.

This is a serious journey, not a hobbit walking-party.


Annatar598
Rohan

Jan 18 2014, 6:55pm

Post #17 of 34 (305 views)
Shortcut
The live "animation" [In reply to] Can't Post

Of Martin Freeman, if you will, is what drives these scenes.
His spontaneity and timing are what make these scenes memorable.


patrickk
Rohan

Jan 18 2014, 8:44pm

Post #18 of 34 (290 views)
Shortcut
It is worth remembering... [In reply to] Can't Post

....that Dickens was a famous or infamous changer of his stories (as they were serialised at the time), in response to fan responses; and he was very aware of his US market. Indeed it s a very old trope; and is in line with respecting the readers/viewers. PJ does it and he sits in a long line of great artists who have done it. I am sure Dickens got the same flack in the 19th century that PJ gets now.


marillaraina
Rohan


Jan 18 2014, 8:53pm

Post #19 of 34 (285 views)
Shortcut
I agree with both of you [In reply to] Can't Post

I like DOS alot and I think the changes pretty much all make sense, I feel the characterization which need to do have depth and I feel like they fit into this world.

With regards to fanfiction, the fact is most mythology IS fanfiction for all intents and purposes. Why are there a million versions of various Autharian stories and why do some of the character act different in one than in another? Fanfiction basically. There are even stories related to the Bible that are basically ancient biblical fanfiction - "hey what's the explanation for this? I know I bet this is what happened!". Etc, etc, etc.


Rickster
Rohan

Jan 18 2014, 8:54pm

Post #20 of 34 (284 views)
Shortcut
most of us do not condem him at all.. [In reply to] Can't Post

 


Michelle Johnston
Rohan


Jan 18 2014, 9:34pm

Post #21 of 34 (282 views)
Shortcut
Where has the "heart" gone [In reply to] Can't Post

I am most interested to read your posts because we had highly symmetrical views of AUJ. My view of DOS is quite simple I think the answers I need to make it more complete lie with the EE however I think there are very good reasons for your disconnect.

The heart of AUJ was B/T/G and and equally important their relationship with each other. With DOS that interaction is entirely absent. Thorin and Bilbo are now resolved and Gandalf is elsewhere.

I am sure the film makers realised this and the emotional undertow in this movie comes from elsewhere Bilbo/Ring Tauriel/ Kili and Bard & Family/Laketown Power base. Now that is a challenge for the average audience they have to switch their emotional compass in a different direction. There are added complications for deep book fans because all three of these resonances are absent from the book. There is one magnificent exception to this the heart wrenching entrance by Thorin and Balin through the hidden door.

Another reason why the "heart" is missing In DOS is every single emotional journey is incomplete nothing is resolved and I think you can argue that this has not turned out to be the second movie it is the first part of the second movie.

The wonderful news is that in Part 11 everything will be resolved those whom journey home will do so, those whom don't will do so. Evangeline has said BOFA is not intended to complete with Helms Deep it operates more on an emotional level rather than a feast of spectacle.

I feel sure the heart that pulsed so deeply in AUJ will quicken and deepen from now on. Why because DOS represents a huge investment which has yet to pay off.

Who said Peter Jackson didn't take risks and was formulaic.

Finally as a general point to others this fan fiction/Mary Sue line of enquiry means nothing to me, people have been making movie adaptions since film was in its infancy and overt identification is a trick that directors have always considered as part of their armoury. If someone seriously thinks Tauriel represents some sort of wish fulfilment for Phillippa and Fran they are I think a little off the mark!!

As others and I have discussed the DNA that go to make up Tauriel has Tolkien wound into it. The only essential difference is that woman are now perceived to be physical creatures which rarely was the case in the Edwardian era that Toliken was raised in to.

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


happydood
The Shire

Jan 18 2014, 10:46pm

Post #22 of 34 (257 views)
Shortcut
Well, you're a case in point of why I think PJ's liberties... [In reply to] Can't Post

are moot in the big picture. Like you, I'll be reading the book to my daughter when she's old enough to enter this world. PJ's Hobbit isn't Tolkien's Hobbit. PJ's Lord Of The Rings isn't Tolkien's Lord Of The Rings, either.

I'll steer her toward the movies for what they are when she's old enough, but will that really ensure she reads Lord Of The Rings before she reads it? No. But I saw the Rankin Bass Hobbit and RB's Return Of The King before I'd read either of Tolkien's books and yet, here I am, on a Tolkien fan site, because I love the books first and foremost.

I've read much criticism that says they have problems with the execution of the films themselves. That's certainly valid. But complaints that the films (or Sherlock, for that matter- which I happen to love) are fan fiction is entirely missing the forest for the trees.

Do we hold Tchaikovsky accountable for turning Romeo & Juliet into a twenty minute overture at the sacrifice of all that beautiful language? Of course not, and to do so would be ridiculous. It's a different medium. Film and literature are two different mediums. I can think of few books that have translated to the screen in a way where anyone says 'Well, this supersedes the book now and you don't need to read it.'

On second thought, I take that back. Kubrick's The Shining supersedes the book and you don't really need to read it.

But I think it's more telling that Lord Of The Rings pleased as many fans as it did when there were MAJOR liberties taken with the story. I absolutely think they are better films than The Hobbit films, but I also think Lord Of The Rings is a better book. In the end, the movies will simply have to be what they are and the book remain what it has always been.


simplyaven
Grey Havens


Jan 18 2014, 11:01pm

Post #23 of 34 (248 views)
Shortcut
Not my cup of tea [In reply to] Can't Post

Unfortunately, I'm no fan of fan fiction inserted in another person's work which happened with the Hobbit movies. While in LOTR PJ and his team used characters created by Tolkien and whatever changes were made were including these same characters (although I still miss Glorfindel, I do understand Arwen's character development through the scene), in the Hobbit went a bit too far for my taste. I do stray from such adaptations as to me this is not an adaptation of a literary work written by another person but a completely different thing, a new work all together. I have nothing against people writing whatever they wish to but I have very much against inseritng it into an already exisitng piece.

Culinary journey through Middle Earth continues! Join us on the Main board for the renewed thread!

Middle earth recipes archive

I believe


simplyaven
Grey Havens


Jan 18 2014, 11:03pm

Post #24 of 34 (233 views)
Shortcut
There is difference [In reply to] Can't Post

because in LOTR there is still respect enough towards Tolkien while here things got wild and free. :( I agree with you. Problem is no one from PJ's team is Tolkien and it shows. That's why the depth and understanding of the legendarium is missing.

Culinary journey through Middle Earth continues! Join us on the Main board for the renewed thread!

Middle earth recipes archive

I believe


simplyaven
Grey Havens


Jan 18 2014, 11:10pm

Post #25 of 34 (235 views)
Shortcut
Do they really? [In reply to] Can't Post

I happen to come from lands where some of the world's most well known myths were created and I can tell you that for thousands of years they didn't change. I can also say that those who simply stole those myths and gave new names to the gods and goddesses to "create' their mythology, even they didn't change the mythology itself. So, no, myths do not change just like that. Mouth telling is a completely different category and that is where story telling often added some bits here and there but in my lands there are thousands of stories which were written down and recorded hundreds of years ago and people who told them to the writer/recorder told them as "what I know from my grandmother/great-grandmother", etc. While some elements may vary, these are usually minor and the story remains the same, that is especially true when it comes to characters and important events which form the skeleton of any written or spoken story. I, as a phylologist myself, have studied many volumes of folklore and myths and will argue that they change easily or often. On the contrary, they are among our main tools to get a good grasp of the continuity in a cultural sense.

Culinary journey through Middle Earth continues! Join us on the Main board for the renewed thread!

Middle earth recipes archive

I believe

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

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.