What would Tolkien think about this whole "conquer Mordor

He resisted having a movie made out of the series because the proposed script had too much action to it.

This shit would make him roll in his grave. Only in this scenario he seems to be alive, so I guess he'd just roll.

>>52945995
Probably pretty peeved, since it goes quite a bit against the base moral code of his works.

Seeking power and domination are intrinsically bad in Middle-Earth, as compared to creativity, inspiration, and personal determination and heroism.

The central struggle of the entire LotR trilogy was that using the weapons of the Enemy against him would make whoever used them just like him. Galadriel, Gandalf, Elrond, Glorfindel, etc... could have easily laid waste to Sauron and his armies had they harnessed the power of the Ring, but they chose to instead put the fate of Middle-Earth in the hands of a lone Hobbit and his trusty companion.

I haven't really played that much of the new LotR games, but I'd be surprised if the devs weren't to some degree aware of this and setting up the protagonist as a bad guy for some future game.

Still, they're pretty fun iirc. I thought the whole "persistent orc nemeses" thing was pretty cool from what little I played of it. Didn't capture the atmosphere of the series very well, especially since I'm a bookfag, but it was still enjoyable.

>>52946135
Shadow of Mordor does a good job being a story that's clearly set in middle earth but at the same time is a very different kind of story to LotR or the Hobbit.

>>52946135
Can't be worse than the constant nuclear allegories he had to argue with while he still lived.

JRRT's message in LotR was that Good won because they willingly rejected power. Using the Ring's power (or on the games' case, that of another ring) to raise an army and conquer Mordor goes against everything dear to Tolkien. If I may remind you of one pivotal moment in the story, when Galadriel (who desired earthly power as much as Saruman) had Frodo at her mercy and was almost lured to evil by the Ring:

>“And now at last it comes. You will give me the Ring freely! In place of the Dark Lord you will set up a Queen. And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night! Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the Mountain! Dreadful as the Storm and the Lightning! Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love me and despair!”
>She lifted up her hand and from the ring that she wore there issued a great light that illuminated her alone and left all else dark. She stood before Frodo seeming now tall beyond measurement, and beautiful beyond enduring, terrible and worshipful. Then she let her hand fall, and the light faded, and suddenly she laughed again, and lo! she was shrunken: a slender elf-woman, clad in simple white, whose gentle voice was soft and sad.
>“I pass the test”, she said. “I will diminish, and go into the West and remain Galadriel.”

That is how you beat Sauron canonically. He was afraid some of his most powerful opponents would use the ring against him. Any of the wizards, or the Elf-lords, or Aragorn probably would've succeeded in replacing him had they used the Ring. But he could not comprehend that all of them would reject to use it, and that they would then attempt to destroy it (which is also why Aragorn's diversionary attack on the Black Gate worked to distract the Eye from Frodo & Sam).

>>52945995
Well, Shadow of War, if it properly follows the themes and foreshadowing that the developers have been building up, will end with Talion and Celebrimbor becoming exactly as bad as Sauron, possibly resulting in Talion becoming Sauron's new physical body since they fucked up his old one in the first game.

However, this is EA, who doesn't understand the concept of letting a property die a natural death, so in all likelihood Talion will get to ignore the consequences of forging a Ring and becoming a power-hungry warlord, and the series will be dragged out another 2-3 games before poor reviews and worse sales kill it off for good.

>>52946613
>Using the Ring's power (or on the games' case, that of another ring) to raise an army and conquer Mordor goes against everything dear to Tolkien.

He wrote about such a hypothetical situation in one of his forewords. In that situation, hobbits would've been completely wiped out, trampled under both sides as worthless and weak.

The developers might as well take this shit right to the end. If we can't nuke the Shire eventually, in a sequel or something, I will be very disappointed.

>>52945995
When it comes to Celebrimbor, you can't teach an old dog new tricks. I think Tolkien would be interested in it as a hypothetical scenario. The Developers seem to be committed to being faithful to the wider lore of the setting so I don't believe that they'll let Talion and Celebrimbors buddy-cop fiesta have a happy ending.

>>52945995
What I don't really get about these games is that why couldn't they just have made a LotR game that wasn't about the War of the Ring.
Shit, it's LotR. People won't care what the setting is, the name will sell enough in any case.
It is just feels really contrived to try to fit it in the frame of Tolkien's main work. I get why it is done, probably like 10% of people who've read the trilogy have also read Silmarillion, let alone Unfinished Tales, but just make a game set in the War of Wrath or something.
You could still use LotR in the title to sell it. You'd even have more creative freedom and I'd imagine more of a positive response from Tolkien fans too.

>>52946848
>just make a game set in the War of Wrath or something.

Play as an original Maia, a stealth archer commando out to murder the shit out of balrogs?

>>52946848
>probably like 10% of people who've read the trilogy have also read Silmarillion
I think you're forgetting that not everyone who's read the trilogy also posts on /tg/.

I'm guessing the number of people who've read the Silly Marian is about 1% of the audience for the fellowship of the return of the two hobbit kings.

>>52946859
Sure, I'd rather play that than Shadow of Boredom.

>>52946848
I'm pretty sure the video game licence only covers LotR and the Hobbit, same as the movies and the GW miniature game (the licencees are all different of course).

>>52946899
Silmarillion is definitely right out, but as these two games have shown, completely original stories can be made.

>>52946859
I think a game in the aftermath of the Nirnaeth Arnoediad could work realyl well, trying to survive as some unknown human or elf in Beleriand.

>>52946848
Tolkien's little shithead kid is being a cunt and won't license anything other than the core LotR series because he was butthurt about the movies and doesn't trust any film or game makers.

File: christopher-tolkien.jpg (10KB, 180x238px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 180x238px

>>52946965
>tfw Chris "little shithead kid" Tolkien is 92 years old

>>52947060
He's Tolkien's kid, and he's a little shithead.

There is nothing wrong with my statement.

>>52946965
Can't rightly blame him for not trusting industries that mainly operate for maximum profit rather than art.

>>52947116
Sure, but you -can- blame him for depriving the rest of us out of entertainment we might've liked to see and enjoy. Does he really have the right to block potential millions of people from having a good time in Middle-Earth?

File: orQcv49.png (57KB, 247x323px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 247x323px

>>52947150

>>52947150
>Does he really have the right
yeah?

>>52947230
>>52947234
He didn't even write the fucking thing.

And hating EA is all very well, but I'd like to see someone with a soul make something out of Silmarillion. There was this fan webseries that was put down as I recall.

>>52947150
He has that right. But it doesn't mean we have to like it.

>>52947260
But his father did, and he most certainly is the best person to tell if something about his father work is right or wrong.

>>52947260
>He didn't even write the fucking thing.
He did write a lot of the Silmarillion. If you've read any of the HoME volumes, you'll notice from the minimal editing that daddy's notes were pretty much in shambles. It's fair to say that he should be considered the coauthor of publications like Children of Húrin and the upcoming Tale of Beren and Lúthien, too.

File: 1438293872952.png (156KB, 270x270px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 270x270px

>Copyright lenght in the UK is 70 years after author's death
>not even 30 years until LotR becomes public domain

>>52947404
I'm waiting for the Hobbit, myself, though I'm rather skeptic we're going to see either. Are copyright renewals a thing in the UK?

>>52946643
So basically, the series will take lore accuracy to meta level?

>>52946643
I'd be surprised if he doesn't become a power-hungry warlord, or more likely, if the series doesn't end in he and Celebrimbor separating and Celebrimbor being the final boss.

I mean, one of the DLCs for the game is Celebrimbor with the full power of the ring marching around Mordor and assembling an army of mind-controlled orcs he uses to take down Sauron. It doesn't work as the ring goes for its 'true master'.

File: mickeymouseFINAL.jpg (86KB, 1029x819px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 1029x819px

>>52947471
I'm pretty sure there's no copyright lobby as powerful as Disney in the UK and that Tolkien's works will enter the public domain on schedule.

>>52946965
As somebody who had to see all three Hobbit movies, I'd rather he had been even more of a "shithead." It would have spared us a lot of awful shit.

File: 1461263293143.gif (650KB, 320x480px) Image search: [Google]

650KB, 320x480px

>>52947404
>>52947580
Once something's in the public domain, it's impossible to buy that thing's copyright, right?

I would be fearful of a future in which Disney snaps up the rights and starts making their own sequels like Star Wars.

>>52949570
Correct, although nothing would stop Disney from making such prequels anyway. They'd simply not have the exclusive rights.

>>52949570
>Once something's in the public domain, it's impossible to buy that thing's copyright, right?
Disney will certainly make its best legal arguments for why they should be allowed to re-copyright things that are in Public domain.

>>52949570
Why do you think modern fairy tale -based Disney names are named something stupid like Tangled or Frozen, instead of Snow White or Sleeping Beauty? It's because that way the can be copyrighted.

They'll set something in Middle-Earth, but they will name the movie Ringed or something and only use original characters, and then they can copyright all of those even if the world they're set in is still beyond their reach.

File: 1420334337266.jpg (1MB, 1280x5000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x5000px

>>52949509

>>52946135
>The central struggle of the entire LotR trilogy was that using the weapons of the Enemy against him would make whoever used them just like him.
That's exactly what's happening in the game, though.

I mean, you could already see it from the end of the first one, now the only difference between your guy and Sauron is the colour pallet.

>>52947580
Mickey's lobby will extend LOTR's copyright too.

>>52949770
Really? I'm pretty sure LOTR is based in Britain and has different laws.

>>52949770
Mickey's under US copyright. Tolkien was British.

>>52949770
The UK and US copyright laws are two separate things. Disney has managed to introduce US legislation that already extends Mickey's protection to 95 years, and will probably try to lobby for some kind of an extension or exemption in a couple of years - he's the company's mascot and one of its most lucrative intellectual properties, after all. Copyright in the UK, where LotR was first published, is pretty much capped at 70 years after the creator's death. (It was extended from 50 years in 1996, so another extension is of course possible if unlikely).
International copyright is governed by the Berne convention, which basically just states that the signatory countries have to respect each others' copyright terms, and establishes some minimum requirements for copyright that all countries must have (lasting at least 50 years after the author's death, that copyright is always automatic and works need no registration, etc).

>>52949678

Most damningly of all, it would have spared us watching Ian McKellen cry.

>>52949678
Another movie ruined by the CGI Crutch.
Also considering Tolkien's reaction to the engraved goblet incident, he probably wouldn't like a game in mordor much either and that's before you even bring up the plot.

>>52952582
The thing about the goblet was that the language used to it was inherently ugly. Mordor, however, isn't - it even has some green in it.

>>52952640
I don't think he'd like the slavery in Nurn either, no matter how green the fields that the slaves work are

>>52952684
Yeah, but that's just background stuff: you had a lot of it in his books too.

>>52945995
> "conquer Mordor with your own orc army" thing that's been going on with this series?
That's not going on with the series. Wherever you saw that wasn't canon.
The only good LotR vidya is Third Age: Total War and The Third Age for GBA

>>52947335
>But his father did, and he most certainly is the best person to tell if something about his father work is right or wrong.

Brian Herbert.

QED

>>52952582
>engraved goblet incident

Details?

>>52947484
Woah.

>>52952415
I do appreciate the cast having a big get together for him once they realized how stressed out all the CGI horseshit was making him.

>>52954610

Fan sends him a goblet engraved with the black speech on the ring. He hated it, didn't want to be associated with the Evil speech, used it as an ashtray.

>>52954610
Some smart pants sent him a goblet with the one ring inscription on it.
he hated the fact it had the one fucking ring inscription (no shit) and used it as an ashtray (which again, I see no problem you're literally sending him something that was explicitly evil, send a goblet with "To a good night's feast" or "A feast with friends and family" in elfic and he'd probably like it)

>>52954537
He didn't make a categorical statement, dude, he said "[Christ Tolkien] is the best person to tell if something about [J.R.R. Tolkien]'s work is right or wrong." You didn't demonstrate anything other than a counterexample to a precept that wasn't stated

>>52954688
>>52954691
Holy shit, I appreciate this so much.
I keep seeing LotR fans IRL with the stupid One Ring replicas around their necks and I want to ask if they remember the part where the One Ring was fucking evil and needed to be destroyed.

>>52949678
Using green screens was barely the worst thing about the Hobbit movies.

>>52955098
All the greenscreens and CGI were but one of the more visible symptoms of the cancer within the trilogy.

>>52945995
Just check out what Andrzej Sapkowski thinks about the Witcher games. Basically, he's incredibly sour.
Of course, he's what can only be described as "an old man", and he also signed away the game rights for one lump sum payment before Witcher 1 came out. Why? Because he didn't believe there would be any way that it would become anything but a domestic title, never imagining international success in it's future.

He claims his books sold the game, not vice-versa, despite there not really being an English translation prior to the game's release.

As a counterpoint, the guy behind Metro 2033 (Dmitry Glukhovsky... Yes, I had to Google) is 37, signed a contract for residuals, worked closely with CD Project Red on dialogue and script, and loves the games.

>>52954691
>>52955001

right, but in their defense, it's all fiction.

>>52956664
>t. literal retard

>>52956676
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

>>52946673
Keep in mind the games take place some time before the books, I am guessing Talion will be consumed by evil in the third game and be an Overlord type, eventually slain by hobbits or something.

File: zbtz.png (359KB, 883x500px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 883x500px

>>52956376
I watch SBFC too!

>>52956376
And playing that game, I loved it. It was formulated perfectly.
Yet it's not as popular as you'd think.
I hated the fucking late level polyp level though, that was fucking garbage. But I blame my weapon choices for that one.

>>52956664
Oh, for sure.
But it's still a bit awful, isn't it? You don't see fans of Lord of the Flies going around with artificial pig heads on sticks. They could say "yes, it's fictional," after all. You could argue that it's not as subtle and much grosser than a tiny ring on a chain but I still feel that there's something wrong with carrying around this little emblem of fictional evil around with you, specifically: why would you want to carry THAT bit around? I'm having trouble coming up with more informative examples of emblems of evil, though.

File: 1481472012624.gif (1021KB, 375x212px) Image search: [Google]

1021KB, 375x212px

>>52956376
Ultimately, we make our own greatest sorrows; why would people sign away a property that is basically their baby without having a clause that allows you to have a say in its production?

Plus, and this is a tangent, does anyone else feel kinda irked that Superman is constantly turned into a Jesus analogy despite being made by a couple of Jews?

File: 1472529224365.jpg (476KB, 788x1920px) Image search: [Google]

476KB, 788x1920px

>>52957559
Its because the Ring is literally everything the beast inside us wants, but the hero we have the capacity to be should strive against; wearing it is like succumbing to temptation, but worse, because the foulness of the thing is explicitly spelled out. The Ring isn't OF evil origin, it IS Evil, full stop, but loads of people today choose to think that anyone stupid enough to take such a corruption willingly would somehow possess the inherent decency to give it up once the task is completed.

Tl;dr: Accessorizing the One Ring is a demonstration of the pitfalls that occur in a society that fetishizes the Hero who has never fallen or ever experienced what it means to be weak.

>>52947080
>pleb with shit taste defends being wrong

KYS.

>>52954688
>>52954691
>fan: hey man I really liked your work, here take it, a memento with the most iconic phrase from it
>tolkien: REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

it's like if you give a cross to the pope and he shit talks you because jesus was crucified and stuff and uses the cross as a dildo instead

>>52959798
It's more like you gave the pope a chalice filled with thirty pieces of silver.

>>52960413
What's the significance of that?

>>52960818
Judas was paid in silver pieces numbering 30.

>>52946965
He's done right.

>>52947404
I wonder who disney is gonna pay off to increase the length of the mickey mouse copyright next.

>>52947150
No I can't. This shit actively defames his father's work. I would prefer vidja babbies not ever touching books. They obviously cannot read.

>>52947260
Irrelevant. Read a fucking book. Not all media needs to be changed to another medium. Fucking read I mean goddamn

>>52946965
t. unironic Hobbit movie fan

>>52947150
Yes, because it's evident that many don't really respect the vision of his father's books

>>52946965
That's not called 'being a cunt' that's called 'recognizing your mistakes'. Good for him.

(You), however, is a small-minded faggot.

File: 9c5fdc25c62a8439a226b3b1582fb50d.jpg (29KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 600x450px

>>52957559
This is exactly the reason I regretted buying one of the trinkets (luckily just a cheap one) and stopped wearing it.
Luckily I've got my Core Drill necklace, and even one of the Elven Cloak Broaches. (Though so far nobody had recognized that and several thought it looked like a green dick.)

>>52949615
In a way, it's good that the movies are already around. Can you imagine if the Mouse was the first to popularize a LotR based film? They would sue the fuck out of everyone in the hopes of controlling future adaptations with their standard "but X is similar to OUR version" fight.

>>52955001
Maybe they're Hobbit fans? You know, when the ring was a powerful magical artifact without any inherent alignment

>>52962738
I don't think the markings around it ever showed in the Hobbit, though. So if they do, this explanation won't work.

>>52955001
It's the ones with wedding rings you need to watch for

>>52959798
He didn't get "reeee" angry he said
>Hey this is cool
>But I really don't want to fucking drink from a cup with the equivalent of "hail satan drink the blood of the living"

>>52961788
It does look like a green dick now that you mention it.

>>52963646
Who drinks out of a goblet anyways?

>>52945995
Tolkien made the lord of the rings as a shitty allegory of english countryside life opposed to the industrial city

The simple fact that there's a sword in it would be too much for him

>>52963723
Tolkien despised allegories and made this very clear numerous times. You're full of shit.

>>52946848
Face it the War of the Ring is the only thing worth mentioning in the Tolkien history

Trying to emulate the wars in the Silmarillion is downright impossible both for scale and characters involved, it would be like God of War on speedball

>>52963723
Fuck off, Moorcock.

>>52963732
>Tolkien despised allegories
>His whole work is an allegory for religion and a philosophical book about how industry and progress are bad and evil
>plus an essay on languages

Keep living in denial, your tolkien husband was an insane PTSD old man and you know it

>>52963778
>using allegory makes your all your work an allegory

>>52963703
Who doesn't?

>>52963778
If you want an allegory for religion, read the works of his buddy C.S. Lewis.

>>52957990
>Accessorizing the One Ring is a demonstration of the pitfalls that occur in a society that fetishizes the Hero who has never fallen or ever experienced what it means to be weak.
Well, isn't that exactly the same thing as what I'm saying? If this is supposed to be a defense of wearing replicas, your point is that people are wearing it ironically, which I honestly really doubt is the case.

>>52961788
Now see that's a nice-ass accessory. It's not even overt so it could pass as an ordinary leaf brooch thing to people who haven't seen the movies. I like that.

>>52945995
Well, I mean

They are setting the player up to fail, right

And Celebrimbor is being portrayed as a dick

>>52963723
>>52963778
Wait, so was it an allegory about industrialization or one about religion? That seems like a different claim.

We can say with certainty that Tolkien didn't intend to make the work allegorical at all, and we know for sure that it is in no way an allegory of WWII. If you want to get all handwavey and postmoderny on us you might as well claim that its a feminist work, but calling the entire work an allegory against industry sounds to me like a very bold claim that lacks in evidence. Plus, I know that
>The simple fact that there's a sword in it would be too much for him
is a joke, but it's a rather weird one to make persuasively when the sword fated to be reforged and a magical dagger are key plot points.

>>52947150
Literally what is property rights the post.

>>52963738
As far as I can recall, there's absolutely no mention of any definite numbers in the Silmarillion when it comes to populations or participants in battles. Just "A Host", a lot of it. A Host of Orcs over the mountain, Morgorth opened the pits of Angbad and unleashed a host of evil (he does this a few times and people are still surprised).

>>52965403
Not him, but you do get occasional references to numbers, and at other times to fractions. For instance, we know that Turgon brought 10,000 elves from Gondolin to the fifth battle, and I seem to remember one anon trying to use that and a few other statements to try to reconstruct the Noldor population of the first age. I can trawl through the archives if you want me to look for it, I remember him coming up with a fairly low estimate, like no more than 100,000.

>>52965845
It may be fairly futile task, because it could very well be that "10,000" is not meant to be taken literally and should just be understood as "a large number."

>>52964906
>If you want to get all handwavey and postmoderny on us you might as well claim that its a feminist work
That's not how post-modernism works, you fucking faggot.

Feminism is a modernist political movement, which automatically means that post-modernism is opposed to it. It doesn't really matter if society is egalitarian, patriarchal or matriarchal. Society is a construct arisen out of a collective bond of subjective views on reality and can therefore never hold any true value.

>>52947520
Separation is what I predict. Celebrimbor goes full elf Hitler and Talion fights him and they kill each other.

>>52946135
Oh yeah, Talion is TOTALLY going down a dark path, there is no way this is going to end with him being the good guy.

The only thing shadow of Mordor gets accurate lore wise is how fucking curayzeee high elf lords are.

That and Ratbag best orc. was super mad when they killed him.

File: 12750346_1660529887545037_565861400_n.jpg (46KB, 480x459px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 480x459px

>>52966045
And also Sauron oozing homo in the cutscenes

>>52965949
I think you might be right. I may have been a little confused constructing that sentence, or just in general, but isn't there a distinction that can be made between postmodernism and postmodern literary criticism? I'm almost certain that I've read postmodern works that critiqued patriarchy anyway -- it's possible that I was just miscategorizing modernist works after all.

>>52947150
>Does he really have the right
Literally yes, in every reasonable interpretation of the law.

>>52956887
Yeah, heard about it on their podcast, read the articles myself.

>>52957835
That is WAY out of left field but honestly I don't really feel that Superman should BE a Jesus analogy. I think it detracts from the character, but that's just me.

>>52966330
Post-Modernism critiques and doubts everything that has a human basis. That is the whole point of it.

There are postmodern works that critique matriarchal thinking and feminism. You just gotta look for it. No point in kicking a tiny knee when there are much bigger knees you can kick.

>>52964762
I was agreeing with you, you tit. I was expanding, however, that The One Ring gained popularity as an accessory because people are stupid and don't actually bother to learn/READ shit about why narrative heroes are Heroes and not just strong bastards with a sharp sword.

The resurgence of popularity for protagonists who are always in a position of power over their antagonists is representative of this trend.

>>52965998
the trailer for the game shows celebrimbor snatched away by darkness immediately after the forging of their new ring in the cracks of doom, so Talion might just be straight up reconquering Mordor with the phantom of Sauron, pretending to be the elf

>>52966045
I'll be honest, I don't know a whole lot about LotR lore but while playing Shadows of Mordor I knew for a fact that I was 100% correct everytime I muttered
>fucking elves

>>52966921
Fuck, yeah, I thought that might have been the case which is why I threw an "if" on there but I really wasn't sure.
>No point in kicking a tiny knee when there are much bigger knees you can kick.
I honestly don't know what you mean by this.

>>52965403
It's a war that literally ade part of the western Middle Earth sink in the ocean, you can't make a game about a conflict that apocalyptic

I'm just gonna say it.

Yeah Shadows of Mordor shits on lore, but at least it had the decency to carve out its niche in some (to my knowledge) unoccupied space instead of pulling a Hobbit.

Also the nemesis system is aces and needs to be adapted into other IPs.

>>52967519
That was just the very final part of it, though. You could get a bunch of stuff made of the earlier battles, the centuries-long siege of Angband, the Battle of Unnumbered Tears, maybe fall of Gondolin... there's a lot to do.

>>52965917
Yeah Tolkien was very influenced by icelandic saga and that's something that was used a lot in them

>>52967519
>>52967627
I know for a fact that there's a Rougelike where you play as a hero attempting to infiltrate Angband, called "Angband." So that's one example already.

>>52966703
Well Superman WAS a Jesus analogy in a way, when he was created he was made to be the Messiah to save the jews from the holocaust so...

>>52967696
That one doesn't really count, though, since you can meet and kill Gollum and Wormtongue and shit. It feels more like a Tolkien-inspired roguelike that piles all his things together into a single bigass nonsensical dungeon, rather than a remotely serious attempt at retelling some part of the epic.

>>52967728
Is it good at least ?

>>52967748
Yeah it's pretty great. I can't get too far in it, but that's hardly the game's fault.

>>52967772
Well who's or what's fault was it ?

>>52967816
Anon's, duh
it's a time-honored tradition for roguelikes to be hard as shit

>>52966921
>The resurgence of popularity for protagonists who are always in a position of power over their antagonists is representative of this trend.
We have forgotten what heroism is. The strong man is no hero: only one who has suffered, and But, strong people control society, so....we hear stories that aggrandize strong people of power.

>>52968293
Oh right sure, just thought it was something else

>>52968293
>>52968877
I like roguelikes, but I'm shit in literally every single one of them besides one.

That one is Infra Arcana.

>>52971364
I know the feeling of being shit, at least.
Why'd you put the name of that one in spoilers?

Does anyone remember the LotR JRPG-style game where you assembled your own budget fellowship but which was surprisingly actually a decent enough game? I think the final boss was a Ringwraith.

>>52947150
>>52946965
This is some fucking entitlement.

>>52973951
Third Age I think.

>>52946954
Shit, that actually sounds like a great game.

Stealth combat with no allies or safe home base to chill at? Where you need to run if you got noticed and could only take on enemies in small groups at a time? going half the game without meeting a friendly NPC?

Sign me up. I'd play the shit out of that.

>>52946877
Yes, but even the people who haven't read it know of it's existence.

If you made an LOTR game and said "set in the ____ age, _____ years before the War of the Ring" somewhere everyone could see it. Then people would probably just follow along and get engrossed in the story.

You might even see an uptick in people reading the Silmarillion because of it.

>>52945995
Shitty lore rape aside, as long as they make the combat actually good and not the generic buttonmashing Arkham City bullshit like the first one I'll be all fucking over it. It's not like a give a shit about story in a video game anyway.

Too bad the combat will almost definitely be the same bland bullshit as the first.

>>52966921
>The resurgence of popularity for protagonists who are always in a position of power over their antagonists is representative of this trend.


Can you give some examples of that?

I don't think you're wrong, but it's an interesting topic and I'd like to know what recent stories make you say that's becoming a trend.

>>52966087
What a fruit

>>52946877
>>52974513
>not reading the Silmarillion in 4th grade because your dad didn't let you read Harry Potter
step it up

>>52974445
Sounds a lot like Dark/Demon Souls. Either way, I'd be down for it. Sounds awesome.

As other anons noted, it'd be great if creators had access to the rest of the IP. That said, I can't fault Chris Tolkein after the shit show(s) that have been the games and The Hobbit.

>>52975217
I read the Silmarillion in 6th grade, after reading LOTR and Harry Potter.

You don't know me...

>>52975844
Well that is one of my favorite games

Also, for all the (deserved) hate that the Hobbit gets, I really feel it was the studio that was most at fault.

If you watch the behind the scenes footage it's just full of Peter Jackson and everybody else on set having no sleep because they were trying to pump out a project as big as the Lord of the Rings in less than half the time. You can just see how miserable Jackson was trying to pull off an impossible task like that, and that's why so much of the movies are CGI, because it's less man-hours.

If the Studio had spent half as much as they did on marketing on hiring extra people to float the hyper-sped up production, then maybe they could have came out near the same quality as LOTR.

File: 1423987669908.jpg (139KB, 666x666px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 666x666px

>>52949570
FUCK THEY WOULD WOULDN'T THEY

>>52971364
>>52973895
Yeah why ? Is it shit ? is it fun ?

>>52967679
Anglo-Saxons did it, too, I think.

>>52967722
>Superman WAS a Jesus analogy in a way, when he was created he was made to be the Messiah to save the jews from the holocaust so...

But that's not true.
Superman predates the holocaust.

>>52946135
To be fair, that's pretty much what's happening exactly. Before the second game was announced, the ending of the eye of Sauron appearing in Talion's eyes as he and Celebrimbor choose to forge a new ring was supposed to imply that they were playing right into Sauron's hands, and just delivering him a new ring.

Even with the new game coming out, it still doesn't seem like Talion's story will have a happy ending.

>>52947150
while I think that a lot of the "expanded" stuff made after tolkien's death is a load of bull even though the lotr trilogy was amazing and the first two hobbit movies, SoM and bfme 2 were fairly good and it's perfectly in Chris's legal right to do this, what I can't excuse is him refusing to talk to his own son for over a decade for wanting to take a more liberal approach with his grandfather's works. New things aren't inherently bad, and the way Christopher reacted just made him look like a petty cunt.

>>52946965
>what is the Hobbit trilogy

>>52977619
>If you watch the behind the scenes footage it's just full of Peter Jackson and everybody else on set having no sleep

Every fucking thread talking about those awful movies I have to read this. It's bullshit.
This would explain poor pacing and editing, or scenes with poor acting kept in.
This does not explain awful ideas IN THEIR CONCEPT, as, like how they raped Radagast (retarded, bunny sled), how the chases were cartoony, how the final battle looks like something from warcraft and not from lotr universe, and so on.

The truth is that the Lotr movies were a combination of an happy accident and people keeping Hackson at bay. when he had full control, he went full George Lucas.

File: Interplay LOTR.jpg (7KB, 169x217px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 169x217px

>>52983278
>First two hobbit movies
>Good.
Are you high? They completely destroyed the literal core message of the Hobbit, that Bilbo's form of courage, a modern "alone in the dark and making the right decision" sort of courage as opposed to the dark ages values the dwarves exemplify, was 100% gutted. It's a story about how comic supercommandos teach the worthless hobbit to be awesome like them.

Also, completely side point, but pic related is by far the best LoTR game if you want to go for an expression of LoTR lore. Shame that the gameplay itself is godawful.

>>52983805
I've thought about this a lot myself, but I think calling Jackson another Lucas lacks evidence. We know for a fact that Jackson and co. DID lack the kind of time to make the Hobbit movies that they notably did have for the LotR trilogy -- a rushed job CAN explain poor choices in their concepts, because if you know anything about the creative process you should know that it's as much a process of refining good bits as it is taking out worse bits.

I mean, let's use Radagast as a hypothetical example. On the creative room floor, you could have the germ of an idea:
>Hey, so we're shooting for a bit of a lighter tone than the trilogy, right? Why not make Radagast a bit silly? He'll contrast well with Gandalf.
Isolated, that idea could turn into either a good idea or a bad one, but you can't know until later in the process. Unfortunately, they didn't have the time to discern that, and if anybody did happen to notice they were going the wrong way with it, there wouldn't have been enough time to rectify it -- we KNOW they were on a tight schedule, and reshooting costs money. I'm not going to call Jackson another Lucas until we see him defending the Radagast's birdshit hat as crucial to the poetry of the series or whatever the fuck.

>>52984606
Not him, but you can point to the LoTR trilogy itself as evidence of gradual lucasization. The movies diverge more and more from the books the further you go, with RoTK eliminating almost a third of the book (pretty much everything between the destruction of the ring and Bilbo and Frodo sailing west), but also things like the entire re-writing of Aragorn's arc, the character assassination of Denethor, etc. Going back into the Two Towers, we get bizareness like the Elves at Helms Deep and Faramir bringing the Hobbits to Osgiliath. You don't have anything comparable in the first movie, of PJ deciding what LoTR SHOULD be about (All the good guys getting together to fight the bad guys in one big, super-tight/coherent story), and ignoring what's actually in there.

>>52984166
honestly mate, if you want to have the core message put through unchanged, you're never gonna be happy with the retelling. then again I consider adaptions sort of their own separate thing, so that might be part of it.

also, even though the DOS version of LotR was decent, the SNES version is utter trash. top tier soundtrack though.

>>52966087
I want to SMOOCH AND ALSO MARRY Sauron!

>>52947580

Nothing makes me seethe with more range at Congress than this, jesus. It'd be nice if rebbit and facebook could kick up as much outrage over this as they do for some gorilla getting shot.

>>52984845
>also, even though the DOS version of LotR was decent, the SNES version is utter trash. top tier soundtrack though.
Pretty sure they were two completely separate games, but I"ll admit I never played the console one.

>>52945995
Tolkien: "these cretins don't even care about all of my poems"

>>52984949
eh, both done by Interplay, console adaption just came a while later.

>>52985058
But what I'm saying is that the console game isn't an adaptation of the PC game, it's a completely different game with just about everything different except the setting. It ends in Moria as opposed to Dol Guldur, you don't have the same party, inventory, skill, or interaction system, etc.

>>52984909
Your post would make me laugh if reality wasn't so depressing. I mean, I think people should attempt to make real issues apparent to the masses, but it'd be unreasonable to expect them to actually care that much.

Come to think of it, everyone is slobbering on Disney's knob. Something like this may actually be hopeless, asking them to take action against the company who made all their favorite movies as a kid and brought superheroes into the mainstream.

>>52949678
Is this actually him getting upset over the green screen?

>>52985558
You've managed to not have heard of this already?

>>52984606
>Why not make Radagast a bit silly?
This is a bad idea in its core. It is in no way salvageable and is a sign of the schizophrenia of the movies - they don't know if they are a Lotr prequel or a sillier story in the same universe.
Also, he greenlighted the birdshit. This makes him another Lucas -YOU have the burden of the proof that some exec specifically asked for the birdshit against his will.

>>52984675
Most of the adaptation you cite are reasonable. I like a more modern Aragorn or a tempted Faramir. The elves in Helm's deep give a better scope of what else is happening during the war of the ring. If they saved the day would have been terrible, but what happens is they "die" and men have to fend for themselves. Coherent with the story.
We did not need Glorfindel, and the Nazgul chasing Arwen make a more compelling story, and them more menacing. I would have LOVED The Scourge of the Shire, but the movie would have been even more criticised as never-ending. I am a fellow autist an I would have not minded, but would make no sense on a cinematographic way. Also, th hobbit HAD their arc anyway, we see them matured so their characters are not murdered.

Now, we see the "Georgelucasing" creeping into the movie in lotr - I agree with that. But is more about retarded ghost army or super-legolas than adaptations like the ones before.

>>52985928
>Most of the adaptation you cite are reasonable
They're only reasonable if you accept the notion that PJ is writing a movie with a fundamentally different story than the one that Tolkien wrote.

>I like a more modern Aragorn
Why? Especially since Aragorn's character arc is essentially it's own plotline only tangentially connected to the war of the ring plotline, which is itself not the entirety of the "hobbits" plotline. What the hell is gained by having him doubtful of his ability to be Isildur's heir? Long filler scenes?
>or a tempted Faramir.
Why ignore the obvious parallel between Eomer's confrontation with the three hunters and Faramir's confrontation with Frodo and Sam; they're very obviously meant to be read opposed to each other. Now we don't see a difference in Rohirric and Gondorian culture, we see Faramir's daddy issues.
>. If they saved the day would have been terrible, but what happens is they "die" and men have to fend for themselves. Coherent with the story.
Only if the story is about how all the good guys are getting together to fight the Bad Guys. That's very clearly not what Tolkien was going for, which is why the Elves are failing, fading, and going to the West, while it's the men that inherit the earth.
>, but the movie would have been even more criticised as never-ending.
So just throw out what is literally and addressed in the Introduction as the core plotline? Because the books are about the Hobbits, not about the War of the Ring.

>Also, th hobbit HAD their arc anyway, we see them matured so their characters are not murdered.
Not really. How do we see Merry or Pippin "matured", especially since they're the prime movers of the Scouring.


>But is more about retarded ghost army
What's wrong with the dead men of dunharrow? Especially if you want to cut down on time and length, compressing two battles into a single one makes sense.

>>52985219
I suppose so, but honestly the interactions were the only thing worth salvaging from the DOS game, and they basically got rid of that for an aborted, buggy Ultima VI clone with zero depth and no conversation system.

File: 1476035908849.png (117KB, 297x409px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 297x409px

>>52945995
Daily reminder that Shadow of Mordor isn't canon

>>52983805
>This does not explain awful ideas IN THEIR CONCEPT,

You do realize screenwriters need enough time to come up with good ideas too right? Especially since Peter Jackson wrote a lot of the script for both LOTR and the Hobbit. If you have a million other deadlines to think about, some really shitty concept in the script might get thrown by the wayside while you hope someone else will catch it.

I just have a hard time buying that the director who did SUCH a good job on LOTR could make such a complete hash of the Hobbit just because he got on a power trip. The studio rushing the project offers a lot of extra factors.

Also Lucas's bad decision between the first and second trilogies are much more easily explained by the 20 year gap in between the films. Lucas seemed to see absolutely nothing wrong with making a film into a CGI shitfest. He thought that was making the films BETTER. On the other hand, Jackson had most of the tools of CGI for LOTR that Lucas had for the prequel films, yet managed to use CGI tastefully and not overdone for LOTR. I seriously doubt he would have been so heavy handed with CGI in the Hobbit if he wasn't so pressed for time.

You're not wrong that those plot elements were terrible though, I just think there are better explanations for what went on behind the scenes.

>>52984675
There are deviations from the books in Fellowship too though. Tom Bombadil getting written out of existence, Gandalf not wanting to go through Moria. It was really just about balancing movie-goers expectations with faithfulness to the source material. Would the average viewer been ok with sitting through 45 minutes of story AFTER the climax of the film? Would audiences have been satisfied with a ghost army that that didn't speak or have any overt action? Would introducing a character totally immune to the effects of the one ring been effective toward setting up the narrative of it being a immensely corrupting artifact that could bend anyones will?

The answer to all of those is probably not.

>>52985928
Greenlighting a bad idea does make you partially responsbile for it, yes, but people can be put in positions were they're too rushed to catch every bad idea that come their way, and they need to make sacrifices if they're going to get the film finished.

>>52985928
>-YOU have the burden of the proof that some exec specifically asked for the birdshit against his will.
Dude, what? I'm not trying to "prove" anything, nor did I even mention executives.
>This is a bad idea in its core.
I'm not trying to talk just about that idea, but about creative ideas in general. And you'll notice that the germ of the idea that I very carefully isolated -- "silly Radagast" -- has nothing intrinsically to do with the poor implementation of that idea, e.g. the birdshit hat.

When you point out (rightly) that
>Also, he greenlighted the birdshit
you're just missing the point. Of course I'm not denying that he greenlit the birdshit: I'm going as far as to suggest that the birdshit may have been his idea, when I don't really have any reason to do so other than the fact that it's a hypothetical situation and these details don't matter for that. The fact of the matter is that the decision to greenlight something or not is ITSELF IMPAIRED by crunch-time, by a lack of ability to review those decisions in the first place due to time contstraints. Look at it like this: if they had been given more time on the movies, the possibility exists that somebody working on the movie would have pointed out what was wrong with the idea. It's even possible that somebody DID, but they didn't have time to reshoot those scenes. So claiming that it was ALL Jackson going Lucas and NOT AT ALL due to time constraints, is, I think, the actual claim that requires proof.

>>52985219
I suppose so, but honestly the interactions were the only thing worth salvaging from the DOS game, and they basically got rid of that for an aborted, buggy Ultima VI clone with zero depth and no conversation system.

>>52986149
>>52986292
huh, didnt give me a note for posting that. sorry.

>>52986106
A more modern Aragorn and Faramir are more compelling and are more interesting to follow and to empathise for to the audience. They are people and not archetypes. Their characters are not betrayed because they are still honorable and wise men.

>Only if the story is about how all the good guys are getting together
People are fighting in middle earth. The elves at Helm are just a way to show that the conflict goes beyond the part shown (there is a throwaway exchange between Gimli and Legolas in another part, too). There is nothing in those scene implying what you wanted to see. We see the elves contribute, then fade, and the fate of men in their own hands. You are just constructing a complicate explanation for your anal refuse of something that was not in the book.

>Not really. How do we see Merry or Pippin "matured"
Are you seriously implying the 4 hobbits are the same guys at the end of the movies? Because if you dod that, means we did not see the same movie

>muh scouring
what is pacing in a movie

>the ghosts
The dead men of dunharrow is great, but they do too much and are invulnerable, they kill part of the tension and the sacrifice of the Rohirrim. I understand that asking for the fiefdom is at the same level of "muh scouring" in 3 movies, but they should have mede them less powerful. Is the only really goofy part, along with super-legoland, in an excellent RotK.

>>52946026
>They say when battle of Gondolin would be the most ridiculous action packed movie of all time

>>52986245
Then I ask you - look at the style, tone, and quality of the other movies of PJ.
You will realise that he is good in goofy shit only, and not even that good.
lotr was an happy accident; and his trademark goofyness creeped in it as well.

>Greenlighting a bad idea does make you partially responsbile for it
sorry but this is not a nuance about Faramir or Aragorn characters. Is a huge ton shift that puts people out of th movie and devastates what the Istary are. Is like having galadriel in the Fellowship swearing and farting tits-out. There is stuff that simply cannot go through the filter unless the author has no cue of what is doing, is a huge hack, and anything he said about being a lotr fan is just exploiting the hard work of his collaborators.

>>52986274
>There are deviations from the books in Fellowship too though. Tom Bombadil getting written out of existence, Gandalf not wanting to go through Moria.
Yes, but they don't deal with the core themes of the original works and substitute a completely different vision. Especially when you cut things (Bombadil for instance).

>Would the average viewer been ok with sitting through 45 minutes of story AFTER the climax of the film?
But it's not the climax; the scouring IS the climax, where the Hobbits apply the lessons they've learned on their adventures.
>Would audiences have been satisfied with a ghost army that that didn't speak or have any overt action?
I'm not even sure what you're asking here.
>Would introducing a character totally immune to the effects of the one ring been effective toward setting up the narrative of it being a immensely corrupting artifact that could bend anyones will?
He isn't totally immune to the Ring, he's just not immediately overwhelmed with a self-destructive attitude towards it. If that's the message that's trying to be sent (and I highly doubt it; I bet the decision for the Osgiliath stuff has more to do with balancing out the movie's focus since they're not ending it in Shelob's lair) then how do you justify things like Glaadriel turning away from the Ring? Or Boromir giving it back after he fucking picks it up in the Misty Mountains.

>>52986409
I don't think he would've liked to see that in a movie either. In his text the whole thing took a few paragraphs.

Not exactly the type to dwell in action.

>>52986285
>Dude, what?
Then is Hackson's fault.

Also, see this >>52986447
These are not nuances. My guess is that he had people in the older crew that told him "no pete that's retarded" and this did not happen.
Could be one of the actors? Viggo and Bernard Hill added a gravitas that is not present in the Hobbit. Could it be they gave insights in the lotr movies?

>>52968801
Historically, the meaning of hero really was 'strong person'. Look at the Illiad, all the heroes are various kings and rulers and strong men.

>>52986362
>A more modern Aragorn and Faramir are more compelling and are more interesting to follow and to empathise for to the audience. They are people and not archetypes. Their characters are not betrayed because they are still honorable and wise men.
That says precisely nothing, and the characters were never "archtypes" in the books.
>People are fighting in middle earth.
Because Sauron is attacking them, not because they're committed to some idealistic notion that they need to save all Middle-Earth.

> There is nothing in those scene implying what you wanted to see. We see the elves contribute,
Which shouldn't happen. The Elves WEREN'T contributing, except to give a bit of advice (and often bad, the Rivendell elves don't even help the Fellowship pack, or they'd have noticed an absence of rope), when things intruded upon them.|

>Are you seriously implying the 4 hobbits are the same guys at the end of the movies?
I'm certainly implying there's no evidence in the movies of Merry and especially Pippin being anything other than the same dumbfucks they were at the beginning.
>what is pacing in a movie
>Remove the climax
>Cite to pacing.

>The dead men of dunharrow is great, but they do too much and are invulnerable, they kill part of the tension and the sacrifice of the Rohirrim.
Well, that's stupid as hell as an objection, because they actually do MORE in the books, given that the battle of Pelargir was the one where both Gondor and Mordor (presuambly) sent most of their forces, and Aragorn uses them to win it bloodlessly.

> understand that asking for the fiefdom is at the same level of "muh scouring" in 3 movies,
What the HELL are you talking about?

>>52986464
The focus in the movies is multiple. The climax is on the Ring and its destruction because it was the center of te trilogy. I personally would have loved 4 movies with fiefdoms, scouring and all the bullshit, but that was not going to work with 3 movies. Try it would have ended in a Bot5A-tier mess.

>>52986409
Just imagine all the possible quipping.

>>52986500
The point was.
If they/he had "funded/endorsed" a Silmarillion short story/short movie series. The one about Fall of Gondolin, would mostly be "Fast and The Furious" tiered ridiculous action all over the place.
Tolkien wrote that shit, not anybody else.

>Tolkien secretly loved action

Don't get me started on the War of Wrath.
That would HAVE to be a CGI fuckfest.

>>52986550
>>Remove the climax
>>Cite to pacing.

The movies have an entirely different climax to the books, is all. It's not necessarily worse, just different.

>>52986574
>The focus in the movies is multiple
Bullshit. Everything becomes subordinated to the War of the Ring arc. Aragorn won't step up to become king, doesn't even seem to want to become king, until the WoTR makes it necessary. You change around the entire stance of places like Lorien, to make a WoTR push. You cut out the Scouring precisely because it's NOT part of the WoTR.

>>52986618
And the movies have a different climax to the books because they are FUNDAMENTALLY ABOUT A DIFFERENT PLOT THAN THE BOOKS. That's what makes them such huge changes, as opposed to something like Bombadil, or eliminating Henneth Annun(sp?)

>>52986500
> In his text the whole thing took a few paragraphs.
Mostly because Tolkien died before he was able to finish his rewrite of The Fall of Gondolin. The only completed version of the story spent many pages describing the battle, but was too obviously inconsistent with later developments in the legendarium to be included in the published Silm.

>>52986550
I think you are a terminal case of bookfag. I cannot do anything else but surrender.
I can only say that you are the reason why fan should never be listened to.

>Archetypes
They were, especially Aragorn. You fail at everything, forever.

>But they weren't
If you have different media, you need to convey the story in a different way.
You have to create a narrative in which people watch and give a shit.

>muh climax
the way the movie is built, the climax is the destruction of the ring. again, you are oblivious to tone and pacing. One would have ended with no time, and focus shifted from the catharsis of the ring destruction.

>muh book
In the movie, we see the thing for a while from the eye's of the Rohirrim. What they did with the ghosts was disruptive of their arc.

>the HELL
muh fiefdoms = muh scouring so is pointless to ask for a rendition of the ghosts as in the book.

>>52986682
>And the movies have a different climax to the books because they are FUNDAMENTALLY ABOUT A DIFFERENT PLOT THAN THE BOOKS. That's what makes them such huge changes, as opposed to something like Bombadil, or eliminating Henneth Annun(sp?)

Is this a bad thing, though?

Just try and imagine how they could've made the same plot as the books. I don't think it could ever have worked, and if it could have, only the dimmest, nerdiest fanboy would've even wanted to see it.

They did just about the best they could, barring the occasional relatively minor fuck-up.

>>52986682
>until the WoTR makes it necessary.
Here is shown that you are just anal about the book and unable to follow a movie.
Aragorn motivations and the ned to get the crown for arwen, too are clear. The beautiful scene with Boromir add to the responsibilities. This alone make the movie very good from the standpoint of his character.

>>52986734
>only the dimmest, nerdiest fanboy would've even wanted to see it.
Is exactly what he is. I just give up.
REMEMBER PEOPLE: never do things to appease the fandoms. They are anal about the details and oblivious about the whole. Is like appease the Comic Book Guy - a pointless exercise.
4th edition D&D was born from that.

>>52986362
Despite the fact that we're arguing on Peter Jackson's merits, I will admit that you have a pretty deep and nuanced understanding of both LOTR and what makes a good film, so props I guess.

About your point about not needing the Arwen Nazgul chase scene, I think it's less about having a dramatic chase and more about introducing Arwen as a character and getting us to care about her. Honestly, the Aragon / Arwen romance is basically nil in the books, and it doesn't make much sense either. She just shows up after everything is done in a passing conversation, and it's super odd and confusing: "You're telling me that all of the elves are leaving middle earth for Valinor in the west, but one of them just so happens to stay and marry a man while all of her family and people leave, just because he became king? What? Why?"

By introducing her so early in the films and giving us more backstory on the two of them it's much more believable that she'd want to stay. And having our first experience of her be this badass warrior elf-maid who can out ride Nazgul and do river magic makes an audience instantly like and root for her.

>>52986447
>Greenlighting a bad idea does make you partially responsbile for it
>sorry but this is not a nuance about Faramir or Aragorn characters.

I wasn't talking about Faramir or Aragorn...?

>Then I ask you - look at the style, tone, and quality of the other movies of PJ.
>You will realise that he is good in goofy shit only, and not even that good.

Hey man, his King Kong was a pretty good remake that dealt with the source seriously. Have you seen the 80's one? Now THAT is silly, goofy trash.

>>52986702
>I think you are a terminal case of bookfag.
Yes, I'm a terminal bookfag for thinking that an adaptation of a book should actually adapt the books, and keep ot their actual themes and plots. Crazy, crazy stance, I realize.
>They were, especially Aragorn. You fail at everything, forever.
No, really, prove this. What exactly was he an archtype of? A wandering king? Then why do you have the funny moments with him chiding Merry for losing his pack, that's not part of a wandering king. What about his doubts and inability to lead the Fellowship post fall of Gandalf. He's the king/leader, surely he can lead.
>If you have different media, you need to convey the story in a different way.
But you aren't conveying "the story", you are conveying a completely different story.

>the way the movie is built, the climax is the destruction of the ring.
Because they're telling a completely different story. It's not about "tone and pacing", it's about deciding that one plot wasn't good or cool or exciting enough, and throwing it out, and substituting a completely different plot, and then pacing things around that.

>In the movie, we see the thing for a while from the eye's of the Rohirrim. What they did with the ghosts was disruptive of their arc.
No it isn't. You still see the saving of the city as the Orcs are about to break in, you still see the death of Theoden and the defeat of the Witch-King. You still see them doing their part at the Black Gate. How do the dead men impact the "arc" (what arc? What growth or change is there among the Rohirrim?) of the men of Rohan.

> muh fiefdoms = muh scouring so is pointless to ask for a rendition of the ghosts as in the book.
I still have no idea what you're referring to concerning "fiefdoms", or how that ties into the dead men of dunharrow.

>>52986829
>Yes, I'm a terminal bookfag for thinking that an adaptation of a book should actually adapt the books, and keep ot their actual themes and plots.

Well, given that it would be just about impossible in this case... yes, yes your stance actually is pretty crazy.

What if you made Silmarillion/Book of Lost Tales/Lays of Beleriand 100% CGI?
Like that Beowulf movie, except much much higher quality.
I think this would make stuff easier to implement.
>Possibly even better than live action.
It would really have that fantasy dream feel.

>>52986734
>Is this a bad thing, though?
For an adaptation, fucking yes.
>Just try and imagine how they could've made the same plot as the books. I don't think it could ever have worked, and if it could have, only the dimmest, nerdiest fanboy would've even wanted to see it.

You could very easily have done it by always focusing on the point of view of one or more hobbits, (or at least predominantly focusing on them) get the audience very invested in them, and make it about their adventures, psychology, and troubles. But it's completely impossible to make a film where it's about a central character or characters and what they do, am I right?


>They did just about the best they could, barring the occasional relatively minor fuck-up.
Fundamentally reinterpreting the work is not a "minor" thing, fuck up or no.

>>52986745

>Aragorn motivations and the ned to get the crown for arwen, too are clear. The beautiful scene with Boromir add to the responsibilities. This alone make the movie very good from the standpoint of his character.
And yet he faffs about doing it. If he really was all hot for Arwen and wanted to marry her, needing the throne to do so, why does he for instance, not get Anduril reforged and take it with him? He never steps up and ACTS like a king until 2/3ish through the way when Elrond forces his hand.

>>52986883
If you talked about ease of implementation and high quality, I'd much rather go with traditional animation.

You don't get enough hand-drawn animation these days even though it almost invariably looks better than CGI, at least when the whole film would be CGI instead of live-action.

>>52986829
>you are conveying a completely different story.
This is just not true. You state this as a fact but is bullshit.

>>52986882
>Well, given that it would be just about impossible in this case... yes, yes your stance actually is pretty crazy.
What makes it impossible? Why can't you make a movie about the Hobbits, by say, making them interesting characters whom the viewers would care about, especially as they're thrust into positions of responsibility that they are in no way ready for.

>>52986464

>But it's not the climax; the scouring IS the climax,
I think you just have a hard on for the scouring dude. Not everyone found it that interesting.

>I'm not even sure what you're asking here.
In the books Aragon just rides though the pass and calls the dead warriors to him as shadows that don't speak or interact except to fight. And Aragon doesn't even have to put any effort of struggle into winning them over except blow his horn. Do you really think audiences would have accepted that?

I'll admit they wound up being a little OP, but that's better cinematically than just having them be meh.

>Would introducing a character totally immune to the effects of the one ring been effective toward setting up the narrative of it being a immensely corrupting artifact that could bend anyones will?
>He isn't totally immune to the Ring, he's just not immediately overwhelmed with a self-destructive attitude towards it.
I'm sorry I should have been clear. Tom Bombadil is the one who's totally immune to the ring. It's made very clear that's the case in the first book, and the council at Rivendel even considers giving it to him for safekeeping. The reason they cut his character is because that completely undermines the narrative of the ring as an all corrupting evil artifact.

>>52986894
>not get Anduril reforged and take it with him?
It happens in the third act. the fact that is Elrond bringing it is good because it shows (not tell) that he changed is heart.

>>52986905
It is completely true. I would suggest that you re-read the introduction to the Fellowship of the Ring; Tolkien explicitly states that the core of the book is about the Hobbits. That's why the Scouring of the Shire is around, to finally, finally show them as acting in a manner reminiscent of the Big Folk, of solving their own problems through military organization and military force, without help from Elves or Men or Wizards that they can hide behind.

The War of the Ring is an enormous sub-plot within it, by far the biggest, but it's not the totality of the work, which is why you have chapters 4-8 and most of nine in Return of the King, and why they're completely omitted from the movie.

>>52986977
>cannot understand that a book can be about more than one thing.

I think I've summarized your arguments so far.

>>52986977
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Rn5lSntQ7M
Making an adaptation into a word for word copy into visuals, is retarded.

>>52986447
>Is like having galadriel in the Fellowship swearing and farting tits-out
Martin stop posting.

>>52987089
kek
(I am the one you answered)

>>52986927
>I think you just have a hard on for the scouring dude. Not everyone found it that interesting.
Whether or not you find it interesting is irrelevant, it's the climax (or not) because it's the resolution of the main plot. If you think that the main plot is the War of the Ring, then it's at Mount Doom, but then you have to deal with all those other problems like "What is half of Return of the King in there for anyway?" and "Why does Tolkien explicitly state otherwise.

>In the books Aragon just rides though the pass and calls the dead warriors to him as shadows that don't speak or interact except to fight.
Well, no, he actually has to explore a pitch-black area with literal supernatural fear that shakes the hell out of Gimli and most of their horses, then ride like hell for almost a week to get to the Vale of Erech on time while literally everyone else living in the area is pissing themselves.>>52986927

>And Aragon doesn't even have to put any effort of struggle into winning them over except blow his horn. Do you really think audiences would have accepted that?
If it's set up right, sure. You play up Aragorn as Isildur's Heir, the guy who fixes up all the things that Isildur fucks up, you do a good job (maybe really early in that introductory segment a la the siege of Barad Dur) of how Isildur failed to get those men to fight for him and his curse on them, and you make it a long, long set up energy releasing scene, rather than some magical confrontation and bending the dead to his will.

\

>>52986904
I'd say you'd have to make humanoids with motion capture.
Say what you want about hobbit, the dragon was "epic", and they used motion capture for his movements too.
It's really difficult to portray actual "weight" and gravity through hand drawing.

>>52987113
>the guy who fixes up all the things that Isildur fucks up
You just described the literal definition of the perfect hero archetype. YES. That would have been AWFUL.

>>52987113
What you are failing to get, and what people are desperately trying to tell you, is that things don't work out in the same way in 2 different media.
Remember what John Rhys-Davies said about the Gift of Galadriel and how it could be very awkward on screen.
I know is overused but you are REALLY somewhat autistic.

>>52986927
>I'm sorry I should have been clear. Tom Bombadil is the one who's totally immune to the ring
Ahh, my mistake, I thought you were talking about Faramir there. No, Bombadil is weird, and I fully support his removal from the movies, because again, Bombadil doesn't really directly impact the main plot, or even the "secondary" main plot if you consider the War of the Ring the main plot. I'm not against all change whatsoever, and there's a long list of things I would eliminate if I were in charge; but ones that strike at the core messages of the books are ones I dislike, intensely.

>>52986945
But he doesn't change his heart. None of Aragorn's motives or desires change, it's just that suddenly "You need more men" and this is a way to get them; it's all things that happen to Aragorn, not actually a change in the character or progress along some kind of arc.

>>52987032
>Not understanding that you have enormous amounts of stuff that's completely unnecessary if you don't make it about the Hobbits, like just WHY the Hobbits happen to be everywhere that the action happs and so much of the books are narrated out of their points of view, so much so that major segments, like the entire thing with the dead men, are related as someone telling a story to a hobbit.

>>52987063
And I'm not suggesting that they do this. Things like eliminating Bombadil, turning the large orc into a troll in Moria, making Theodern's malady much more explicitly magical, removing the Woses, merging Eomer and Erkenbrand, etc; are all very good ideas for an adaptation. Fundamentally altering core themes is not.

>>52987226
Not everyone interpretate the same themes the same way.
An adaptation "should" disregard whatever the author has said outside the book itself.
Author might have meant X, and said it in this letter not in the book.
If you don't read this letter you might have thought it meant Y.
An adaptation should be the adaptors interpretation/reimagination of the story.

>>52987146
Hand drawing usually doesn't need "weight," because your eye knows that it's looking at something not real, and isn't putting as many realistic expectations on it.

It does take fucking forever though, and that why you're seeing it replaced with CGI and motion capture a lot nowadays.

>>52987226
> Fundamentally altering core themes is not

You see this is the problem with most of your arguments. THEY DIDN'T FUNDAMENTALLY ALTER THE CORE THEMES BY REMOVING THE SCOURING.

More than half of the films are still about Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pipen and how they grew as characters. Many instances in the films we are expected to see things from their point of view and empathize with them. All they did by leaving out the Scouring was leave off a long section that ins't introduced or led up to at ALL during the first 2.5 books, and would have distracted and annoyed viewers after what was actually the climax of the film. (i.e. FRODO and SAM climbing Mt. Doom to destroy the ring.)

Also:

>But he doesn't change his heart. None of Aragorn's motives or desires change, it's just that suddenly "You need more men" and this is a way to get them; it's all things that happen to Aragorn, not actually a change in the character or progress along some kind of arc.

Yes it does. It's not just that he needs more men and this is a way to get them. It's Elrond getting Aragorn to accept that the only way to succeed is to accept and embrace his destiny as Isildur's heir. The sword is a way of him symbolically embracing his ancestry, and what he will have to be for Gondor if they are victorious.

>>52947580
The copyright isn't on Mickey Mouse. It is on "Steamboat Willie." Specific works -- a book, a movie, a television episode, a song -- are covered by copyright. Characters, logos, etc., are covered by trademark.

If/when "Steamboat Willie" enters the public domain, you still won't be able to produce your own cartoons starring Mickey, because Mickey is trademarked. All you'll be able to do is copy/share/show "Steamboat Willie," even commercially, without licensing it.

>>52963646
>>52954688
>>52959798
He expressed thanks to the fan, but expressed that because of the nature of black speech he would rather use it as an ashtray for his pipe than to drink from. The person who made it didn't seem to mind, as it received actual use for most of his remaining life.

>>52984864
Melkor, you need help.

>>52986515
Look, I get that English might not be your first language, but I don't think you're even trying to respond to my point, so there's really no reason for me to re-state it anymore.

File: 1491350510616.jpg (236KB, 691x625px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 691x625px

From this thread I take it that Tolkien(s) are pretentious autists?

>>52967582
....like a Kill la Kill /v/

File: FUCK YEAH.jpg (29KB, 460x589px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 460x589px

>>52973959

>>52993241
Retard is your native language. I talked with many people in this thread in many posts.
If you don't have actual arguments, just shut the fuck up.

>>52967582
>orcs can have Hypeman

I have never been so excited to murder things

>>52993523
Look, my point is that time constraints make it harder to discern what are good or bad ideas -- which means that Jackson would still be responsible for them, but that the Hobbit movies were not the result of him acting like George Lucas -- that is, they were not necessarily the result of Jackson receiving more power with less checks.

There's what I've been saying this whole time, now free from examples, which seem to have only distracted you. There's no reason to get hostile: I figured that English wasn't your first language because of your awkward syntax ("Then is Hackson's fault" lacks a verb, for example, that a native speaker would probably not omit) and not as a way to call you stupid, which is not necessarily true.

>>52993313

I mean, I'm a big-time bookfag but I really liked the movies as well.

Literature & film are two incredibly different mediums and it's only natural that things will be changed in a good adaptation if you want it to be good.

I have a bit less patience with the games, in part because of the fact a lot of action-adventure games (which is what most LotR games end up being) are pretty substantially focused on power fantasy, which is kinda inimical to the entire point of Tolkien's works and mythos, but even then they're still fun-ass games. I just feel a bit taken out of the world when I'm this ranger guy and I'm like teleporting around and shooting ghost blasts at people.

I think you could have a LotR game adaptation that's both fun and true to the atmosphere though. I know everyone (me including) jerks it off too much, but Dark Souls showed everyone that you could have a combat-focused action-adventure title that doesn't make the main character feel like a badass 24/7. Not saying that it'd necessarily have to be a Souls-type game (though there are definitely aspects of Souls' design that I think a lot of action RPGs should try to emulate because I have seen very few combat systems that feel tighter or more satisfying) but like the core idea that a game doesn't have to make the character a badass superhero to be satisfying or engaging is something I think would be pretty critical to pulling off a Tolkien game without sacrificing the core vision.

>>52966921
>The resurgence of popularity for protagonists who are always in a position of power over their antagonists is representative of this trend.

Which ones? Please tell me.

>>52962738
But the markings on the ring are revealed when gandalf throws it into the fire in LOTTERY BOOK ONE

File: Strawman_Senpai.jpg (9KB, 247x204px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 247x204px

>>52963703
Tolkien duh

>>52966045
>fucking curayzeee high elves
Until you've seen Feanor and his sons, you ain't seen shit

>killing their own allies because they wouldn't help them
>fighting enemies they couldn't possibly defeat because "MUH SILMARILS"
>killing their own relatives over Silmarils

And yet, they're still more likable than the other elves.

File: 1492972029744.jpg (37KB, 750x442px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 750x442px

>>52995758
>>52974664
>Being put on the spot like this.
Oh dear, didn't expect to have to cite particular examples; insofar as the stuff I've experienced lemme see if I can make a small list, though of course my opinion will inevitably vary from others from time to time.
>Every single Avengers movie besides Civil War.
They literally have a demigod, a man with the superpower of money, distilled patriotism in human form, and a giant green rage-monster who converts autism into power; every one of the villains is an underdog from the beginning, and if not, the heroes literally can magic up a solution with stuff they had all along.
>The Social Network
Probably cheating, but knowing that Zuckerburg inevitably comes out on top in the end retroactively places him in a position of power.

I haven't been to the movies in a while, but anecdotally I've heard Lucy, Ghost in the Shell (recent version), Kingsmen, Days of Future Past, EVERY Underworld movie, most Superhero movies, most children's shows (though they get a bit of a pass since folks don't like explaining tragedy to children), 50 shades of queer, and other stuff I'm probably forgetting. I'm probably being a bit autistic, but if I had a week I could probably have more compelling evidence.

>>52997293
>EVERY Underworld movie
Depends on what you count Michael as in the first movie. If he's the/a protagonist, then most of the movie he's a complete underdog whose only useful skill is his paramedic training which he uses once.

>>52987146
>It's really difficult to portray actual "weight" and gravity through hand drawing.
/co/fag here to tell you that's bullshit.
Traditional animation is much easier to do with a small studio and making it look good than CGII and especially VFX/mocap stuff.
Especially when you take tradigital animation into account (frame-by-frame, and hand-drawn but on a computer)

>>52946954

Imagine playing as Turin.

File: 1484864807672.jpg (57KB, 625x625px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 625x625px

>>52997366
Huh, I tend just to roll the vampire chick into the 'protagonist' role, since she's a constant and tends to be the mover/shaker we're given the most perspective on; the dude is mostly supporting, or at least in my opinion.

But you understand the general gist of the point I was making, right? Or was it poorly conveyed?

>>52997293
>>Every single Avengers movie besides Civil War.

Not to pile onto Disney here but Star Wars 7 kind of suffers in a similar way. To my mind the problem isn't just that the main characters succeed at just about everything, this is an adventure story after all, a large part of it is how flashily they succeed at everything.

A good example of the kind of thing I mean by flashiness is contrasting John from Die Hard 1 with John from Die Hard 4: In the former he wins but gets severely fucked up in the process, in the latter he kills a helicopter with a car.

Note that sometimes flashiness works, when the work establishes this is a situation where the main character should be acting flashy. For example James Bond kicking ass in a fine tux, or Neo in the second Matrix film fighting those agents at the start of the movie, or John Wick killing the people that broke into his house... If you're character is meant to be an ultrabadass showing them being an ultrabadass against some mooks is perfectly fine.

Back to Star Wars 7 the issue is it makes the characters actions flashy quite often when the dialogue and way it is shot implies that they should be struggling. Of course Rey and Finn will escape those TIE Fighters in the Falcon, because otherwise the movie is over. The issue is the dialogue establishes that Rey has limited experience piloting and that the ship isn't in top shape and all the shots inside the cockpit are meant to seem like they are just barely doing this, while all the shots of the Falcon from the outside show it narrowly fitting through tiny gaps and doing barrel rolls and shit. The movie doesn't show Rey the badass pilot doing bitching pilot shit, it shows Rey the scavenger girl desperately trying to survive..... by doing bitching pilot shit.

I feel like really often in the Marvel movies the characters speak and emote as if they are having a really hard time, but then what happens on screen is the equivalent of seeing Batman fight a cripple.

>>52997293
Anon, you talk like this is something new.
The only genre that has protags who do not possess some manner of strength or competence is the horror genre.
Action movies have been this way for decades.

>>52981986
Really ? Oh well I heard that once on the radio and it seemed believable, but I didn't checked

>>52998958

I mean, this is both true and untrue. See the bit about Die Hard in

>>52998922

Sure action movies do have a tendency to make heroes that are really competent and always have, but personally it feels to me that the ratio has changed between "skin of their teeth" protags and "Ultra badass" protags. Then again this might just be a product of the movies I happen to be seeing.

>>52999031
Die Hard 1 was an anomaly of the 80s, tho, in the same vein as the Deathwish movies, featuring ordinary people in crazy situations.
Contrast those to the many, many more unstoppable action hero movies of the 80s.

>>52999048
You're certainly right that Die Hard is an anomaly. I guess I feel like these days filmmakers have dropped the pretense that the main character might lose more though, but it could just be because I am too young to have grown up watching moves from the 80s save the ones that people really liked.... This is almost certainly a result of exposure bias on my part.

Having said all that though it really seems to me like too many movies have dropped the pretense of threat. Like, a common complaint I hear around is that the Marvel movies are "too quippy" and I half agree with that. I actually think a bit of quipping in a comic book movie that is meant to be light-hearted is perfectly appropriate, but all too often it gets done in such a way as to remove tension from the scene. For example in the latest Guardians of the Galaxy The whole exchange over whether or not anybody had tape that happened during what should have been a tense moment goes for far too long and just steals the momentum the film had earned by having Ego reveal he had put cancer in Mommy Quill. Like, that exchange goes for at least a minute (it wouldn't surprise me to hear it went on for several). I'm not sure that exchange works in a film that is trying to convey that the success of the heroes isn't guaranteed.

File: 1b1oqh.jpg (53KB, 500x363px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 500x363px

>>52955001
>One Ring was fucking evil and needed to be destroyed.
Yeah, we're aware of that bit of slander.

>>52986151
I hope it's not even the same version of the story

>>52945995
>What would Tolkien think about this whole "conquer Mordor with your own orc army" thing that's been going on with this series? What do you think?

He would like it so much he'd say "Why are you copying my Saruman plotline?"

>>52999579
Was Tolkien Chaotic Good?

>>52998922
Myself, I cannot explain the success of The Avengers. I found the movie incredibly boring, with no tension or sense of threat.

>>52998922
Yeah, contrast that with the climax of the original Star Wars. Sure, Luke pulled off the "one in a million" shot in the end and saved the day, but only at the last possible moment. Gold Team was destroyed after the initial attack failed, and Luke's saw his best friend get shot down right beside him. There were actual stakes (and Luke was established as a badass pilot, so it made sense for him to be one).

In the climax of TFA... I think a couple of X-Wings with unnamed pilots might have been shot down? Even though it was supposed to be a hundred times more powerful than the Death Star, the ragtag plan to destroy it was never in jeopardy. Hell, there was more tension in escaping the thing after the plan succeeded than in destroying it.

>>53000689
Same reason Michael Bay is popular, only written marginally better - which makes people think it's really well-written and awesome.

>>53000798
I would argue that there is most threat in the and of Transformers 1 or 3 than in Avengers or SW Ep VII all together.
Especially the first one. Not a fan of bay but is done reasonably well for what it is. The rest ar garbage.

>>52993937
> (though there are definitely aspects of Souls' design that I think a lot of action RPGs should try to emulate because I have seen very few combat systems that feel tighter or more satisfying)
You seriously don't play a lot of hack'n'slashes do you?

>>53000909
Suggest a few games with tighter and more satisfying combat systems than the Souls series.

I can't on top of my head name any.

>>53000922
Gothic, Might and Magic Dark Messiah, God Hand, No More Heroes, Otogi 2, Yakuza, Ninja Gaiden, Shadow Warrior(Reboot), MGR:R, and Prince of Persia

>>52999579
>The villain is Lawful Evil, therefore not evil
>implying his version of order is one that's to the effect of "everything will be controlled by myself, so no amount of free will

>>53001981
Free will is overrated.

>>53002022
>>>/pol/

>>53002057
>you have said something I disagree with
>get out
Fucking Gondor.

>>53000909
>>53001259
I'm the guy you originally responded to.

I've played a reasonable amount, including multiple of the games you listed, and while they're all alright I definitely preferred Souls (at least DS1).

Admittedly, I think a lot of it comes down to personal preference, Souls definitely emphasizes a weightier and more methodical approach. I found it really satisfying and slick because even though it was very punishing it always felt like the challenges were (for the most part) very fair and I was mostly struggling against my own instincts to get greedy and mash R1 instead of patiently waiting out and not committing to attacks I couldn't land.

I also think that on a certain level a lot of the mechanisms just feel really 'right' and intuitive, like the hitboxes were wonky at times but even though it took me ages to be any good I feel like the systems just 'clicked' like the first time I picked up the controller and everything from there was just perfecting my ability to read enemies and time my attacks and dodges.

You don't have to agree with me, of course, but I think if you're going to claim I don't understand the hack'n'slash genre you should probably back it up with at least your own opinion as to why Souls doesn't have a good combat system?

Keep in mind I didn't say Souls was the *best* hack'n'slash of all time, just that I thought it was up there.

>>53002100
If you actually want to get into it, I don't prefer the Hack'n'slash "methodical" approach of souls because it isn't methodical it's just waiting to hit something.
You aren't really trying to achieve something some specific way you're just given a option to be hit by some guy who overpowers you by a wide margin and if you get hit by him it decreases your health by a good 25% unless you overlevel.
It also doesn't help that such a combat system revolves around mostly waiting out incredibly long and repetetive combos, not to mention that you have to find the minority of weapons that don't feel like ass to use and can actually do damage.
Considering everything you try to hit is also a wet sponge and most of your movements are incredibly slow and barely knock something back unless you have specific swords that make things fly up that are the same size as you.
On top of that you just mostly approach situations the same everytime, you stare at something that you saw move for a few seconds, run at it, dodge whatever it throws at you, hit and miss, and then it dies.

>>53002256
I think some of your frustrations (maybe) came from the fact you might not have had a high level of understanding of the underlying mechanics?

Like I really liked DS from the start but once I understood poise/poise damage/poise breaks, upgrading & upgrade paths, etc... the game became a lot more playable for me.

It's a bit of a bummer that you have to basically read up on all this math shit they never really explain (like the game NEVER outright explains poise and how it works to you iirc) but I felt like everything really came together then.

The slower pace is also nice for me because it gives you some time to plan out shit and make informed decisions, makes me feel less like i died because the enemy was moving too fast for me to react or because my reflexes weren't good enough and moreso because I did something stupid.

Ultimately though to each their own.

>>53002082
REEEEEEEEE

>>52960413
the difference is it was a made up story
imagine george lucas freaking out cause you sent him a replica light saber in red

>>53002713
How do you know it's made-up?

>>53002713
You can disagree with Christianity sure but Jesus' existence as a person, his trial and execution are all historically verifiable.

>>53002809
>>53002931
i'm talking about tolkein's work being fantasy

>>52986927
Tolkien has stated in one of his introductions that the Scouring is one of the single most important events in the series, and that it was written before most of the rest of the series.

File: 1491846638413.jpg (49KB, 616x699px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 616x699px

>>52999048
I was intending to say that the 'invincible hero' style of protagonist was recurring, not that it was a new thing; my bad on not making that clearer.
>>52998922
There's also the bit where Luke almost gets his ass smoked by Vader and has to get saved by the comic relief duo. Though, I did like the black stormtrooper guy, so there was a sliver of tension when he got fucked up by the Vader-worshipper. Also Han dying, though the scene goes on too long and it's obvious he's dead as fuck by second two.
>>52999048
Hilariously, I think the 90's were a time where the fallible, breakable hero got off the ground, but since those were my formative years, I may be biased; Neo gets smoked about three times in the first movie, Murdock of Dark City has power but is schooled by anyone who knows how to use it, and the protagonist of Unbreakable has a home life that is in shambles.
>>53000798
To be fair, they make 'fun' movies, not particularly 'good' movies.

>>53006533
>To be fair, they make 'fun' movies, not particularly 'good' movies.

Some of MCU movies are fun, yeah. Most of Michael Bay's aren't. At least not in my opinion.

>>53004278
Clearly it wasn't important enough to fit what the movies turned out to be, though.

>>52957835
>Plus, and this is a tangent, does anyone else feel kinda irked that Superman is constantly turned into a Jesus analogy despite being made by a couple of Jews?
But that makes perfect sense because the jews made jesus too.

>>53009557
Yes, because PJ Jackson's literary genius clearly decides what is mportant.

>>52946848
just make it in the first age

Please stop bumping this thread.

>>52947150
Holy fuck, you're retarded. When the day comes that hollywood is purged of jews, I'll clamor for more honest representations of Tolkien's work. Until then, shut the fuck up about intellectual property.

>>52998974

Superman, if he was meant to represent anything, is closer in allegory to Moses, down to being a baby sent away by his mother to save him.

>>53016838
>Superman
>Moses
>created by two jews
Fucking hell, that's exactly what he is, isn't it.

>>52957559
Eh, I wear a Hydra pin at work, and it's not because I'm into vaguely-Nazi themed villainy.

>>53016838
>all these allegories

Tolkien himself talked about the difference between allegory and applicability. Just because you see something in a story doesn't mean it was meant to be that way.

Please stop bumping this thread.

>>53019930
No.

>>53020649
Please just stop.

>>53020665
Cry harder, bitch.

>>53023121
Please don't.

>>52957559
I suppose it never occured to anyone that they simply trying to identify with frodo and the main plot of element of the story

>>53025607
Yeah, but why would anyone want that? It's a heavy burden to bear that Frodo was given.

Make the ring out of lead or something, then we'll talk.

File: 1471010699646.jpg (250KB, 820x505px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 820x505px

>>53019882
True, that, but I'm more curious as to why he's been turned INTO a Jesus metaphor/allegory; I mean, for fucks sake, Batman vs. Superman, there's the god damn lance of Loginous (or however it's spelled) in the form of the fucking kryptonite spear, he's literally doing Christ airs, and there's an actual discussion about him as a Christ figure.

I mean, purely from a character study perspective, isn't the oversimplification of a character precisely what 'kills' most of that character's interesting traits?

>>52946135
Celebrimbor's ghost screwing things up leads to an alternate timeline where persistent orc nemesises are a thing and several civil wars happened in Mordor. Also Azog surviving the Battle of Azanulbizar which led to this timeline becoming the Peter Jackson Middle Earth during the war of the Ring.

I don't give a shit what Tolkien would have thought. The game was fun, and Tolkien is dead.

>>52955098
>>52952582
>>52952415
According to the Writer/Director commentary on Fellowship, Ian McKellen always had a problem with acting against a green screen or something that's not actually there.

File: 1474007995769.gif (3MB, 600x324px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 600x324px

>>53025607
I don't know why anyone who want to identify with Frodo; pity him, perhaps, but he's literally a tragic hero who ultimately failed to overcome the darkness when it matters most. To identify with him is to literally identify with not just being weak, but ultimately being incapable when everything needs them the most.
Samwise Gamgee, on the other hand, I can absolutely understand people trying to identify with; he's still weak, and ends up on the quest purely by happenstance, but is ultimately shoulders burdens necessary to stop the darkness from spreading.

>>53025893
Which is fully understandable since you kind of need things and your fellow actors around you to properly enter the given circumstances of the scenes

>>53016894
and they named their all-american space moses superman as a fuck you to hitler

>>53025940
>To identify with him is to literally identify with not just being weak, but ultimately being incapable when everything needs them the most.

so all of /tg/

>>53026428
We don't -want- to identify like that, though.

>>53019882
>Just because you see something in a story doesn't mean it was meant to be that way.

Death of the Author - It doesn't matter what the Author thinks a passage they wrote means. If society declares that something has a specific meaning, then they are automatically correct, superseding the authors original intent.

>>53025940
To identify with Frodo is to identify with being faced with an utterly hopeless task, that one must attempt to complete regardless. To soldier on despite all hardships. To strive to succeed, despite all odds saying you will fail. To volunteer for an unimaginable labour, when it would be so much easier to leave it to others. To do the best with the time you are given.

>>53026514
>If society declares that something has a specific meaning, then they are automatically correct, superseding the authors original intent.

Good luck getting -all- society to agree something means something specific.

>>53026514
Fuck Death of the Author and fuck you specifically.

>>53026514
Death of the Author SPECIFICALLY goes with applicability, you moron: it's all about the reader making up their own meaning of the work regardless of what the author himself might have thought of it.

It's NOT about declaring the author was totally meaning an analogy.

>>53025940

The point was that no one was strong enough to succeed in the quest, if it was a matter of strength they would have just let Galadriel or some other White Council member take the Ring and handle things from there. Sam would have been a goner too if he had held the ring as long as Frodo.

The ring was destroyed because evil was self-destructive and because of Bilbo's mercy on Gollum back during the Hobbit, an event singled out by Gandalf.

>>53026514
>>53027524

I think Isaac Asimov wrote a story in this vein. It seems applicable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Immortal_Bard

>>53027610
That was a pretty good read.