Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I wouldn't associate him with the same genre as Tolkein though. Weird fantasy is fantasy but its kind of in its own category because it deals with very specialized themes that have only recently come into the modern fantasy genre. He is important for the Weird Fantasy though and definitely the Tolkien of his craft.

I haven't read any of his books but would HP fall under sci-fi as well?

Technically all scifi falls under Speculative Fiction which is a sub-genre of fantasy but the academic classification of literary genre's is way different from what people commonly use. Bet yeah, HPL's work has lot of cosmic stuff in it and can be qualified as sci-fi depending.

Well it also depends on how you class Horror. I'd say Horror can stand apart on it's own enough to not get lumped in else where but from Frankenstein on, there's plenty of significant examples through out horror (especially once Lovecraft comes on the scene) where Scifi and Horror are walking hand in hand to one extent or another.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Well it also depends on how you class Horror. I'd say Horror can stand apart on it's own enough to not get lumped in else where but from Frankenstein on, there's plenty of significant examples through out horror (especially once Lovecraft comes on the scene) where Scifi and Horror are walking hand in hand to one extent or another.

A medium can delve into several genres at once like Led Zeppelin they have songs that go into heavy metal, blues rock, hard rock, folk rock, etc.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
That's because Verhoeven is a complete Donkey Cave and wanted to make his anti war movie, not make a Starship Troopers movie.

You're talking about the guy that made Robocop, so you be careful son.

 LordofHats wrote:
The only pillar for modern fantasy imo is Tolkien. The man didn't only write the greatest piece of fantasy literature of the 20th century, he even proposed the value of the genre, articulated its attributes, and argued for it to be taken seriously by a literary community that saw it as childish and having no artistic value.

If we were to consider the 'Pillars' of the Fantasy genre it's probably Tolkien and C.S. Lewis but mostly Tolkien.

So you disregard Homer, Arthurian Legend, The Grimm Tales, Shakespeare, Beowulf etc. And the thousand other century old folklore and mythology which they drew from? Tolkien did not invent Elves and Goblins. He didn't do much new at all besides create an extraordinarily popular example of a fantasy novel. Credit is due for that but to merit him as THE major inspiration for all modern fantasy is pretty ignorant.

Hmmm... Folklore & Mythology =/= Fantasy. I mean, Tolkien was innovative for giving ancient myths and folk tales a modern literary treatment...

 Glorioski wrote:


So you disregard Homer, Arthurian Legend, The Grimm Tales, Shakespeare, Beowulf etc. And the thousand other century old folklore and mythology which they drew from? Tolkien did not invent Elves and Goblins. He didn't do much new at all besides create an extraordinarily popular example of a fantasy novel. Credit is due for that but to merit him as THE major inspiration for all modern fantasy is pretty ignorant.

Its more having to recognize that if we're going to go through ALL the roots of fantasy literature, we'll spend all our time talking about it. The modern fantasy story is the invention of Tolkien based on the works that preceded him but Tolkien's work is the point where we see fantasy become what it currently is. Hence why I use the term 'modern.'

Is Roddenberry that guy who was kept a million miles away from Star Trek II The Wrath of Khan, as the studios didn't want the sequel to be as succesful as the first Star Trek film

Ooh I like this topic. Pillars of modern fantasy?

Tolkien (obviously)
Gene Wolfe (Book of the new sun)
Glen Cook (Black Company books)

My 2 cents, based on the author's originality and style of writing.

 sebster wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
That's because Verhoeven is a complete Donkey Cave and wanted to make his anti war movie, not make a Starship Troopers movie.

You're talking about the guy that made Robocop, so you be careful son.

How you do [a remake] now, you’d have to go into all of the digital world, and I’m not sure that would improve the soul of the movie, you know? The point of Robocop, of course, it is a Christ story. It is about a guy who gets crucified in the first 50 minutes, and then is resurrected in the next 50 minutes, and then is like the supercop of the world, but is also a Jesus figure as he walks over water at the end. Walking over water was in the steel factory in Pittsburgh, and there was water there, and I put something just underneath the water so he could walk over the water and say that wonderful line, “I am not arresting you anymore.” Meaning, I’m going to shoot you. And that is of course the American Jesus.

http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2010/04/paul-verhoeven-robocop-was-a-jesus-metaphor

It's so clear now eh ?

Good thing this is in the OT because we are soooooo far out there at this point. lol

 LordofHats wrote:

 Glorioski wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
The only pillar for modern fantasy imo is Tolkien. The man didn't only write the greatest piece of fantasy literature of the 20th century, he even proposed the value of the genre, articulated its attributes, and argued for it to be taken seriously by a literary community that saw it as childish and having no artistic value.

If we were to consider the 'Pillars' of the Fantasy genre it's probably Tolkien and C.S. Lewis but mostly Tolkien.

So you disregard Homer, Arthurian Legend, The Grimm Tales, Shakespeare, Beowulf etc. And the thousand other century old folklore and mythology which they drew from? Tolkien did not invent Elves and Goblins. He didn't do much new at all besides create an extraordinarily popular example of a fantasy novel. Credit is due for that but to merit him as THE major inspiration for all modern fantasy is pretty ignorant.

Its more having to recognize that if we're going to go through ALL the roots of fantasy literature, we'll spend all our time talking about it. The modern fantasy story is the invention of Tolkien based on the works that preceded him but Tolkien's work is the point where we see fantasy become what it currently is. Hence why I use the term 'modern.'

So what is it that you think Tolkien "invented"?

And yes the roots of fantasy literature are vast, which is one of the reasons naming Tolkien as the sole pillar of modern fantasy is ridiculous.

 reds8n wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
That's because Verhoeven is a complete Donkey Cave and wanted to make his anti war movie, not make a Starship Troopers movie.

You're talking about the guy that made Robocop, so you be careful son.

How you do [a remake] now, you’d have to go into all of the digital world, and I’m not sure that would improve the soul of the movie, you know? The point of Robocop, of course, it is a Christ story. It is about a guy who gets crucified in the first 50 minutes, and then is resurrected in the next 50 minutes, and then is like the supercop of the world, but is also a Jesus figure as he walks over water at the end. Walking over water was in the steel factory in Pittsburgh, and there was water there, and I put something just underneath the water so he could walk over the water and say that wonderful line, “I am not arresting you anymore.” Meaning, I’m going to shoot you. And that is of course the American Jesus.

http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2010/04/paul-verhoeven-robocop-was-a-jesus-metaphor

It's so clear now eh ?

Huh, Verhoeven is an idiot after all.
Still a good movie though...well, except for Robocop 3, that was horrible. The second movie was meh.

So Verhoven is a donkey cave, Robocop is still a decent movie. I think we can all agree on this.

If you're looking for fantasy equivalents to the the masters of SF

I'd agree that Tolkein has to rank highly and probably props up one half of the fantasy table on his own,

but you also have to concider Robert E Howard, the creator of Conan and Bran Mac Morn, probably the strongest influence on modern 'heroic' fantasy, and a major influence on D&D etc

Along with H P Lovecraft (mainly cosmic horror) and the now neglected Clark Ashton Smith (SF, Cosmic Horror, Fantasy and other weirdness) he was one of the Three Musketeers of Wierd tales and dabbled in pretty much every pulp writing genre.

While he was the weakest (in my opinion) writer among them he was the best story teller

 reds8n wrote:
http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2010/04/paul-verhoeven-robocop-was-a-jesus-metaphor

It's so clear now eh ?

Yeah, when I read about a while ago I even started a thread about it on Dakka. Realising that was the point Robocop went from being a really good 80s action movie, to being one of the great action movies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Huh, Verhoeven is an idiot after all.

As goofy as it sounds, it actually works brilliantly to satirise the lunacy of traditional action movies.

Still a good movie though...well, except for Robocop 3, that was horrible. The second movie was meh.

Neither of which had anything to do with Verhoeven.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So Verhoven is a donkey cave, Robocop is still a decent movie. I think we can all agree on this.

The guy is a bit of a nut, but in the kind of way that allows him to make films that are way better than they should be.

Of course, it also leads to him making really awful movies, such as basically the entire second half of his career.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Other than the concepts of power armor and drop pods (which Heinlein originated), SM bear almost no resemblance to anything in ST. Obviously those are very important elements, but in terms of story, theme, and philosophy, there's no similarity at all.

Bolded part is exactly what I was talking about, the concept of "Space Marines" as they are used in 40k and through out the rest originated in the form we know it now in Starship Troopers, especially with the concepts of power armor and "drop" troopers. The Federation of ST is a whole political spectrum away from the Imperium of man and the list really goes on. The 40k concept of the Space Marine as inspired by ST is what originated MORE in the same vein, building on the concept in the name of grimdark/gothicness. Genetically modified super soldiers, pauldrons you can pick up Dish network with, etc.

Okay, if we’re just talking about the archetype external technology and visual tropes, I get you. The concept of Marines in Space in power armor was certainly originated in Starship Troopers. What I was taking issue with was what seemed to be your claim, that Space Marines from 40k are “straight from Robert Heinlein’s Starship Troopers”, which I disagree with because in most regards, the Space Marines and the Mobile Infantry are nothing alike. One is an order of superhuman, genetically-modified & cybernetically enhanced fanatical warrior-monks in lifelong service to a dystopian fascist Imperium. The other much more closely corresponds to the modern model of citizen-soldiers in a democratic (arguably a bit utopian) society. Aside from being elite fighting forces, some of the equipment for one of which is clearly inspired by the other, the two types of soldier have almost nothing in common.

 Glorioski wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
The only pillar for modern fantasy imo is Tolkien. The man didn't only write the greatest piece of fantasy literature of the 20th century, he even proposed the value of the genre, articulated its attributes, and argued for it to be taken seriously by a literary community that saw it as childish and having no artistic value.

...the roots of fantasy literature are vast, which is one of the reasons naming Tolkien as the sole pillar of modern fantasy is ridiculous.

The word "modern" would seem to be there specifically to distinguish between modern writers and their classical, folkloric, and mythological inspirations. If we're talking about modern genres of fiction you can't reasonably complain because Beowulf is being excluded.

 sebster wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
That's because Verhoeven is a complete Donkey Cave and wanted to make his anti war movie, not make a Starship Troopers movie.

You're talking about the guy that made Robocop, so you be careful son.

But, more importantly, Showgirls.

 Ouze wrote:
But, more importantly, Showgirls.

One of Australia's best known movie critics argues that Showgirls is an unappreciated satirical masterpiece. I can't see it personally, but perhaps that's because I keep getting distracted by all the boobs.

 Mannahnin wrote:

 Glorioski wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
The only pillar for modern fantasy imo is Tolkien. The man didn't only write the greatest piece of fantasy literature of the 20th century, he even proposed the value of the genre, articulated its attributes, and argued for it to be taken seriously by a literary community that saw it as childish and having no artistic value.

...the roots of fantasy literature are vast, which is one of the reasons naming Tolkien as the sole pillar of modern fantasy is ridiculous.

The word "modern" would seem to be there specifically to distinguish between modern writers and their classical, folkloric, and mythological inspirations. If we're talking about modern genres of fiction you can't reasonably complain because Beowulf is being excluded.

I'm not just talking about classical, folkloric, and mythological inspirations. Tolkien wasn't even original in his own era.

Nothing is original so such charges are invalid on their face unless we're talking plagerism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
But, more importantly, Showgirls.

One of Australia's best known movie critics argues that Showgirls is an unappreciated satirical masterpiece. I can't see it personally, but perhaps that's because I keep getting distracted by all the boobs.

My personal philosophy has always been that when you realize your movie is gak, you throw in naked women. Obviously this held very true for Flight because a naked woman is the first thing you see, but Showgirls is all about naked women so the best I can figure is that they knew it would be crap before they even started making it.

 LordofHats wrote:
Nothing is original so such charges are invalid on their face unless we're talking plagerism.

So appreciate the context of the discussion. I'm responding to somebody who is saying Tolkien is the only pillar of modern fantasy. The only sense that is true is that people try to copy his success. The Lord of the Rings isn't the basis for modern fantasy any more than Star Wars is for scifi, they are just most popular examples of their respective genre.

 LordofHats wrote:
My personal philosophy has always been that when you realize your movie is gak, you throw in naked women. Obviously this held very true for Flight because a naked woman is the first thing you see, but Showgirls is all about naked women so the best I can figure is that they knew it would be crap before they even started making it.

Ah, but then you get to the strange world of Paul Verhoeven, who makes movies that revel in nudity and extreme violence and do it in a way that subverts the normal expectations of nudity and violence. So, for instance, Robocop is completely nuts in the ludicrous amount of destruction and harm he inflicts in stopping what are, in many cases, minor crimes. And in coming back from the dead to murder the villains (and walking on water along the way) it satirises the US very strange way the US fetishises gun violence and Jesus at the same time.

The almost non-sensical motivations of most of the parties in Total Recall are sort of explained by the idea that this might all be the dream of a man who's just gone nuts, but at the same time the whole thing still plays like a a pretty straight forward meat headed action movie. To show something as ludicrous and still a pretty good example of the genre is basically satire at its best, after all.

And then there's the subversion of the femme fatale in Basic Instinct, where to be honest I don't think it works that well but a lot of critics disagree.

The problem is when you get to Showgirls. Because when you're making something as trashy and exploitative as a T&A movie, there isn't that much to satirise. Instead you just end up with a really crappy T&A movie.

 LordofHats wrote:
Nothing is original so such charges are invalid on their face unless we're talking plagerism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
But, more importantly, Showgirls.

One of Australia's best known movie critics argues that Showgirls is an unappreciated satirical masterpiece. I can't see it personally, but perhaps that's because I keep getting distracted by all the boobs.

My personal philosophy has always been that when you realize your movie is gak, you throw in naked women. Obviously this held very true for Flight because a naked woman is the first thing you see, but Showgirls is all about naked women so the best I can figure is that they knew it would be crap before they even started making it.

Eh hem:



Also, Game of Thrones.

This is how every idea comes about folks. Just pick one of those arrows and pretend thats where the original idea came from, do this for EVERYTHING.

I would say that Tolkien is pretty much the largets pillar of modern fantasy, at the very least he is the sole pillar of high fantasy. Elves are elves because of him, if you look at elves pre tolkien they're these gnomish figures who are godawful ugly and mean. Orcs are his invention, (though I'm not sure if D&D orcs have been cross inspired recently by GW Orks, because they've been getting progressively greener as time goes by.) and pretty much all of the races as portrayed in modern fantasy get nearly all of their traits from Tolkien instead of their folklore foundation.

Though if we're talking about modern american fiction I would say that the other pillar to tolkien is Gygax.

 Glorioski wrote:
So appreciate the context of the discussion. I'm responding to somebody who is saying Tolkien is the only pillar of modern fantasy. The only sense that is true is that people try to copy his success.

Take the pic above displaying a circle of arrows. Imagine each arrow is a 'cycle' of an idea. Tolkien would be the 'pillar' of the current arrow we are currently in, the current cycle being the 'modern' rendition of the fantasy genre which does have distinct motiffs and differences from previous renditions believe it or not. Most noteably that a literary historian will tell you the modern Novel didn't even exist until the works of Hemingway and his contemporaries. Tolkien was one of the first authors to engage fantasy literature into the form of the modern novel.

Though some might suggest the works of George R.R. Martin in Song of Ice and Fire are becoming the next pillar for a new trend in fantasy literature. Time shall tell.

The Lord of the Rings isn't the basis for modern fantasy any more than Star Wars is for scifi, they are just most popular examples of their respective genre.

I actually don't consider Star Wars scifi. And considering how heavily immitated both those things are anyway, arguing they haven't had resounding influences on their genre's is a little silly and narrow sighted.

This thread reminds of a movie trailer were all the good scenes are shown in the trailer. Open the thread and now you have time you can't get back.

Anybody know where I can find some highly detailed space corridors? It's for a project.

 LordofHats wrote:

The Lord of the Rings isn't the basis for modern fantasy any more than Star Wars is for scifi, they are just most popular examples of their respective genre.

I actually don't consider Star Wars scifi. And considering how heavily immitated both those things are anyway, arguing they haven't had resounding influences on their genre's is a little silly and narrow sighted.

So you've turned this round from you saying Tolkien is the only pillar of modern fantasy to me saying it hasn't had any influence? Like I said, it has had a major influence in the fact that people try to copy it's success. LOTR clones exist everywhere. But that's not the same thing as establishing the genre.