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.

It's not that, it's just you've got one side of the story as this epic fight between good and evil and every time it hits some really interesting part of the fight, oops, swaps to Frodo. They picked terrible places for some of the story swaps.

I think that turning The Hobbit into three movies could go either way good or bad so I will reserve judgement until after I see Unexpected journey.

But on topic I think that the price that GW is asking for some of the Hobbit merchandise is absolutely ludicrous but isn't that the way of GW these days so all in all its normal.

gorgon wrote:

Backfire wrote:

12thRonin wrote:

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
Well, I have to disagree with you guys about the Tolkien bit. I'd like you to give me one example of a single author who had created such a developed world. And another who captivated the world with his writing in the same way Tolkien did, and spawned so many works similar to his.

CS Lewis, Frank Herbert, Terry Pratchett, George Lucas, Gene Roddenberry, Larry Niven, George R.R. Martin, Issac Asimov, Arther C. Clarke, Robert Jordan just for a few off the top of my head. Hell even throw L. Ron Hubbard in the mix (he started a religion based off his fiction).

Ah hah hah. Most of those writers never did anything even remotely similar to depth of Tolkien's world.

How much time did Tolkien spend developing the ecology of Middle-Earth? How about politics? Technology?

Tolkien is likely unmatched in his treatment of his world's history and languages...I have no problem giving you that point. But note that those things also have little to no importance about whether the LotR itself is great literature or not.

Of course they have great importance. A book is good if it makes you to want to read it. What aspects of the book make you read it is secondary, as such. And obviously not everyone has similar tastes. I happen to think that many currently very popular writers are absolutely terrible and couldn't write themselves out of a paper bag.

Tolkien, indeed did quite a bit to describe ecology of the Middle-Earth, ditto for politics, technology relatively limited but same is true for most other fantasy writers, heck even many scifi-writers. Asimov for example put relatively attention to technology and much of it is in fact shockingly primitive - for example ships' computers are laughably slow and only marginally faster calculating hyperjumps than humans!

Tolkein's world is pretty simplistic. While the history behind the creation of everything is rich, there are the good guys and the bad guys. The good guys are good and the bad guys are bad. Main flaw with Middle-Earth.

Which is why imo I find the most interesting fantasy world to be George R. R. Martin's ASOIF world.

 Harriticus wrote:
Tolkein's world is pretty simplistic. While the history behind the creation of everything is rich, there are the good guys and the bad guys. The good guys are good and the bad guys are bad. Main flaw with Middle-Earth.

Which is why imo I find the most interesting fantasy world to be George R. R. Martin's ASOIF world.

Yeah, I was interested in Martin's world too until I got to the end of the last book he wrote and realized that all he's really trying to say is that evil prevails no matter what 'good' men do (or in the world of Game of Thrones, perhaps I should say no matter what 'better' men do since it isn't QUITE so black and white).

At the same time think about this:
How many people buy the huge resin FW models (titans for example) that they might use here and there?

Compare that to this 'starter' set that you might use a lot.

 Harriticus wrote:
Tolkein's world is pretty simplistic. While the history behind the creation of everything is rich, there are the good guys and the bad guys. The good guys are good and the bad guys are bad. Main flaw with Middle-Earth.

Which is why imo I find the most interesting fantasy world to be George R. R. Martin's ASOIF world.

I don't get this argument that Tolkien was some sort of genius for coming up with tons of boring, derivative background. The biggest lol is that my copy of the Silmarillion, begins with a letter where Tolkien says he doesn't want to create a Christian feeling mythology, and the next few chapters are the Christian creation story with the names changed. Much of the rest of his background is either pointless or clearly mythology that has been repurposed.

Any long-running fantasy series set in one universe will have just as much bloated background (Hello, Larry Niven, Martin, et al!). Heck, the Malazan Book of the Fallen has much more detail and covers a much longer time period, and the prose is even marginally better. Most RPG supplements has as much background, but are far more entertaining. Sorry, Tolkien.

As for the language--is that supposed to be a positive? If I wrote a bloated sci fi story about aliens and then turned every 20th word into an alien word and made you look it up in the appendix, would that really enhance your reading experience? And I say this as someone who shouted the correct pronunciation of an elvish word at Colbert last night...

So we are spoiled in this wonderful modern era. Tolkein is revered for his position as the father of the modern high fantasy/adventure novel. Not for the actual quality of said works. Many people have improved upon the model he laid out, but that does not in any way diminish his contribution to the genre.
Your argument about Tolkein is akin to claiming that we should not be impressed by Henry Ford and the Model T simply because the Toyota Prius exists today.

 Focke_Wulf wrote:
At the same time think about this:
How many people buy the huge resin FW models (titans for example) that they might use here and there?

Compare that to this 'starter' set that you might use a lot.

Different markets. FW is resin pap made for 40k fanbois. A starter box is a completely different thing, designed to hook you into the game. Esp. if like with LOTR, GW are going to be selling this in normal shops like WH Smiths.

On a side note: Tolkein's universe/world creation mythology is much more similar to that of the Greeks then it is the the Judeo-Christian version. As creation of the material universe is participatory with created beings, and almost hands off by their originator.

 Lightcavalier wrote:
On a side note: Tolkein's universe/world creation mythology is much more similar to that of the Greeks then it is the the Judeo-Christian version. As creation of the material universe is participatory with created beings, and almost hands off by their originator.

Tolkien's mythology as a whole is based on Northern Mythology...

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Lightcavalier wrote:
On a side note: Tolkein's universe/world creation mythology is much more similar to that of the Greeks then it is the the Judeo-Christian version. As creation of the material universe is participatory with created beings, and almost hands off by their originator.

Tolkien's mythology as a whole is based on Northern Mythology...

Tolkien's mythology heavily reliant on Norther European Mythology...yes. Although he also borrows greatly from all the cultures he learned about as a linguist and as part of receiving a classical education. As well, the similarities between Greek and Norse mythology are numerous enough so as to imply a possible relationship or common origin between them. Themes from Finnish, Norse, Celtic, Slavic, Germanic, Greek, Persian, Egyptian, Judaic, Christian, Welsh and Anglo-Saxon/English mythology are appear consistently throughout his works, all of which have a heavy veneer of Northern European mythology/culture plastered over them.

As well, my comment was just meant to demonstrate the non-Christian elements of the story which another posted had written off as a retelling of the Biblical creation story.

 Lightcavalier wrote:
So we are spoiled in this wonderful modern era. Tolkein is revered for his position as the father of the modern high fantasy/adventure novel. Not for the actual quality of said works. Many people have improved upon the model he laid out, but that does not in any way diminish his contribution to the genre.
Your argument about Tolkein is akin to claiming that we should not be impressed by Henry Ford and the Model T simply because the Toyota Prius exists today.

I never said any such thing. Why do you think I've read all his works?

I was arguing against the idea that he was the best fantasy writer ever, or a genius who singlehandedly created the genre. Has he been imitated? Yes, almost as much as Lovecraft. Was he influential to the genre? Yes, almost as much as Anne Rice.


Edit: I mentioned mythology, too, but when the book opens with God and the angels singing the world into existence and Satan creating evil out of jealousy, and man given the special gift of mortality by God, and the garden of eden island and so on, it makes it difficult to take seriously the idea that Tolkien was all that creative or even aware of his own biases in the fantastic.

Also, the short, beardy, greedy craftsmen who speak Hebrew were created by the confused hand of some forgotten dirt deity. I loled so hard at that one. Totally original!

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Lightcavalier wrote:
So we are spoiled in this wonderful modern era. Tolkein is revered for his position as the father of the modern high fantasy/adventure novel. Not for the actual quality of said works. Many people have improved upon the model he laid out, but that does not in any way diminish his contribution to the genre.
Your argument about Tolkein is akin to claiming that we should not be impressed by Henry Ford and the Model T simply because the Toyota Prius exists today.

I never said any such thing. Why do you think I've read all his works?

I was arguing against the idea that he was the best fantasy writer ever, or a genius who singlehandedly created the genre. Has he been imitated? Yes, almost as much as Lovecraft. Was he influential to the genre? Yes, almost as much as Anne Rice.


Edit: I mentioned mythology, too, but when the book opens with God and the angels singing the world into existence and Satan creating evil out of jealousy, and man given the special gift of mortality by God, and the garden of eden island and so on, it makes it difficult to take seriously the idea that Tolkien was all that creative or even aware of his own biases in the fantastic.

Also, the short, beardy, greedy craftsmen who speak Hebrew were created by the confused hand of some forgotten dirt deity. I loled so hard at that one. Totally original!

Fair enough.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Harriticus wrote:
Tolkein's world is pretty simplistic. While the history behind the creation of everything is rich, there are the good guys and the bad guys. The good guys are good and the bad guys are bad. Main flaw with Middle-Earth.

Which is why imo I find the most interesting fantasy world to be George R. R. Martin's ASOIF world.

I don't get this argument that Tolkien was some sort of genius for coming up with tons of boring, derivative background. The biggest lol is that my copy of the Silmarillion, begins with a letter where Tolkien says he doesn't want to create a Christian feeling mythology, and the next few chapters are the Christian creation story with the names changed. Much of the rest of his background is either pointless or clearly mythology that has been repurposed.

Any long-running fantasy series set in one universe will have just as much bloated background (Hello, Larry Niven, Martin, et al!). Heck, the Malazan Book of the Fallen has much more detail and covers a much longer time period, and the prose is even marginally better. Most RPG supplements has as much background, but are far more entertaining. Sorry, Tolkien.

Sorry, but this is just a laughable proposition. Yes, there are few fantasy worlds which are as or more detailed as Middle-Earth (Glorantha, most notably) but they are group efforts, made by dozens and dozens of people over the decades. And of course Tolkien's works are derivative. Nearly every fantasy writers' worlds are derivatives. Song of Ice and Fire is if anything, more derivative than Tolkien. Anyone even cursory knowledge of pre-18th century English history will recognize many elements.

And hey, if Tolkien is so crappy, why do all those fantasy writers and universe builders keep ripping him off? Heck, WHFB and WH40k universes for starters borrow so much from Tolkien they wouldn't even exist without him.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Lightcavalier wrote:
So we are spoiled in this wonderful modern era. Tolkein is revered for his position as the father of the modern high fantasy/adventure novel. Not for the actual quality of said works. Many people have improved upon the model he laid out, but that does not in any way diminish his contribution to the genre.
Your argument about Tolkein is akin to claiming that we should not be impressed by Henry Ford and the Model T simply because the Toyota Prius exists today.

I never said any such thing. Why do you think I've read all his works?

I was arguing against the idea that he was the best fantasy writer ever, or a genius who singlehandedly created the genre. Has he been imitated? Yes, almost as much as Lovecraft. Was he influential to the genre? Yes, almost as much as Anne Rice.


Edit: I mentioned mythology, too, but when the book opens with God and the angels singing the world into existence and Satan creating evil out of jealousy, and man given the special gift of mortality by God, and the garden of eden island and so on, it makes it difficult to take seriously the idea that Tolkien was all that creative or even aware of his own biases in the fantastic.

Also, the short, beardy, greedy craftsmen who speak Hebrew were created by the confused hand of some forgotten dirt deity. I loled so hard at that one. Totally original!

Right, just as totally original as christian mythology and the bible, which use mythologies (flood, creation) taken from older traditions. Yay for repurposing!

I think that GW is just trying to make as much off of this as possible. And as we've seen, they're happy if more people buy less stuff at a higher price. So they're only slightly out of their minds.

 Cruentus wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Lightcavalier wrote:
So we are spoiled in this wonderful modern era. Tolkein is revered for his position as the father of the modern high fantasy/adventure novel. Not for the actual quality of said works. Many people have improved upon the model he laid out, but that does not in any way diminish his contribution to the genre.
Your argument about Tolkein is akin to claiming that we should not be impressed by Henry Ford and the Model T simply because the Toyota Prius exists today.

I never said any such thing. Why do you think I've read all his works?

I was arguing against the idea that he was the best fantasy writer ever, or a genius who singlehandedly created the genre. Has he been imitated? Yes, almost as much as Lovecraft. Was he influential to the genre? Yes, almost as much as Anne Rice.


Edit: I mentioned mythology, too, but when the book opens with God and the angels singing the world into existence and Satan creating evil out of jealousy, and man given the special gift of mortality by God, and the garden of eden island and so on, it makes it difficult to take seriously the idea that Tolkien was all that creative or even aware of his own biases in the fantastic.

Also, the short, beardy, greedy craftsmen who speak Hebrew were created by the confused hand of some forgotten dirt deity. I loled so hard at that one. Totally original!

Right, just as totally original as christian mythology and the bible, which use mythologies (flood, creation) taken from older traditions. Yay for repurposing!

Imitating an imitation doesn't make your imitation original.

Backfire wrote:
And hey, if Tolkien is so crappy, why do all those fantasy writers and universe builders keep ripping him off? Heck, WHFB and WH40k universes for starters borrow so much from Tolkien they wouldn't even exist without him.

Having good ideas doesn't by itself make you a good writer.

 -Loki- wrote:


Imitating an imitation doesn't make your imitation original.

Unless you are GW and planning on filing suit against Chapterhouse Studio...

T

nkelsch wrote:

 Lint wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Dude, where have you been for the last 6 months? This has been common knowledge for a while.

True story, I am just now hearing this. I heard it was going to be 2 movies and thought to myself "Wow they're really taking that horse for a ride." But yeah, three movies is incredibly stupid imho. TRotK could've maybe been 2 movies, following the recent trend ala Harry Potter and Twilight grand finales, but I just don't see how you can stretch the Hobbit into 3 fething movies.

That's where GW gets the balls to upcharge all the Hobbit merch, they're just tagging along with Jackson and the film producers.

They are going to make up a bunch of stuff for the battle of five armies, I also heard the 3rd movie was going to be a 'cleanup' to LotR as LotR is 7 books and they basically totally left out the 7th book where Saurman goes and wrecks up the shire (even though they explicitly showed it in Frodo's vision with galadriel). I heard they may be filming that part as a way to close out the story so who knows.

Would be kinda hard to do the Scouring with Saruman having died at Isengard in RotK.

 Platuan4th wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 Lint wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Dude, where have you been for the last 6 months? This has been common knowledge for a while.

True story, I am just now hearing this. I heard it was going to be 2 movies and thought to myself "Wow they're really taking that horse for a ride." But yeah, three movies is incredibly stupid imho. TRotK could've maybe been 2 movies, following the recent trend ala Harry Potter and Twilight grand finales, but I just don't see how you can stretch the Hobbit into 3 fething movies.

That's where GW gets the balls to upcharge all the Hobbit merch, they're just tagging along with Jackson and the film producers.

They are going to make up a bunch of stuff for the battle of five armies, I also heard the 3rd movie was going to be a 'cleanup' to LotR as LotR is 7 books and they basically totally left out the 7th book where Saurman goes and wrecks up the shire (even though they explicitly showed it in Frodo's vision with galadriel). I heard they may be filming that part as a way to close out the story so who knows.

Would be kinda hard to do the Scouring with Saruman having died at Isengard in RotK.

He is a maiar just like gandalf and Sauron. Gandalf died too,

If they wanted to, a misleading death isn't gonna stop them or even bother movie-goers...

Can we talk about how GW have lost their mind instead of how Tolkein had lost his mind?

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Imagine if we went back to the days of bloodbowl, epic and necromunda, where the WD was full of things for all systems, there would be endless moaning from people wanting the magazine to be 40k cover to cover.

The difference is that Epic and Necromunda are still 40k content to a large extent: they might not have provided rules content but if you're interested in the Space Marines you're likely interested in what large-scale Space Marine deployments look like, and if you're interested in the Imperium you might be interested in the hives of Necromunda for the same reason you're interested in the hives of Armageddon. LotR is part of an entirely different, self-contained setting, so the only overlap is going to be in the hobby content - painting guides and terrain building.

 insaniak wrote:

Backfire wrote:
And hey, if Tolkien is so crappy, why do all those fantasy writers and universe builders keep ripping him off? Heck, WHFB and WH40k universes for starters borrow so much from Tolkien they wouldn't even exist without him.

Having good ideas doesn't by itself make you a good writer.

But nobody's going to care or know about your good ideas if you're crappy writer.

Backfire wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Backfire wrote:
And hey, if Tolkien is so crappy, why do all those fantasy writers and universe builders keep ripping him off? Heck, WHFB and WH40k universes for starters borrow so much from Tolkien they wouldn't even exist without him.

Having good ideas doesn't by itself make you a good writer.

But nobody's going to care or know about your good ideas if you're crappy writer.

And Lord of the Rings is evidence against that.

 Fafnir wrote:

Backfire wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Backfire wrote:
And hey, if Tolkien is so crappy, why do all those fantasy writers and universe builders keep ripping him off? Heck, WHFB and WH40k universes for starters borrow so much from Tolkien they wouldn't even exist without him.

Having good ideas doesn't by itself make you a good writer.

But nobody's going to care or know about your good ideas if you're crappy writer.

And Lord of the Rings is evidence against that.

Occam's Razor...

Tolkien's Lord of the Rings novels are the best known and most popular Fantasy novels that created a whole new branch of literature and several in gaming (RPGs and Fantasy tabletops). That's good enough for me. Can we now get back to topic?

 Kroothawk wrote:
Tolkien's Lord of the Rings novels are the best known and most popular Fantasy novels that created a whole new branch of literature and several in gaming (RPGs and Fantasy tabletops). That's good enough for me. Can we now get back to topic?

Yes fething please. Come on, discuss this crap on another thread.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

I was arguing against the idea that he was the best fantasy writer ever, or a genius who singlehandedly created the genre.

Actually, Tolkien and C.S. Lewis together pretty much did create the genre of epic high fantasy. They were both contemporaries writing and creating in the 1940's. Another contemporary author, Morris, never reached anything approaching the success of Lewis and Tolkien.

Prior to those two authors, the closest we have to epic fantasy were the horror writings of Poe and Lovecraft, the fairy tale based works like the story that was the basis for The Nutcracker, works with fantastic elements like The Picture of Dorian Gray, and other such works that dipped their toe into what we now recognize as an entire genre of literature separate from all those other works. There were other modern (late 19th and early 20th century) fantasy authors, but the vast majority of their works were in short story or serial form, rather than in novel form, and definitely not epic form. Even Howard, creator of the Conan series which pre-dates Tolkien and Lewis, wrote the vast majority of the stories in serial form for publication in Weird Tales rather than as books/novels. Fritz Leiber and Ray Bradbury also wrote the majority of their early works for publications as short stories. The same can be said of the authors like Lovecraft.

While the idea of "fantasy" was not created by Tolkien, he absolutely did create the concept of the epic high fantasy novel. There was nothing like The Lord of the Rings prior to its release, and that work (together with The Hobbit) are generally accepted to be the works that brought fantasy literature from the pages of periodicals like Weird Tales into the main stream.

(You know, it's not often I get to post something in a forum directly relating to what I got my undergraduate degree in.)

Okay, we get it. Tolkien isn't underground enough for the pretentious internet crowd. Back on topic we go. Please?