Tolkien scholar: Please Don’t Make a Tolkien Cinematic Universe

[LagunaD2]

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/01/o...n-tolkien.html

Established stories provide audience-tested settings in which multiple media products can be set, with all kinds of associated merchandise and “experiences” offering additional revenue. (See: the Marvel cinematic universe, Disney’s “Star Wars” and Universal’s Potterverse.) But not all stories are equally suited to being exploited by studios, and a Middle-earth that’s spread out — “like butter that has been scraped over too much bread,” to quote Bilbo Baggins — may not have the same appeal.

[...]

What makes Tolkien’s work unique is the moral heart of his story and the consistency with which he maintains it. Rather than reveling in the acquisition and exercise of power, “The Lord of the Rings” celebrates its renunciation, insisting that the domination of others is always morally wrong. Tolkien is utterly consistent with this morality, even at the expense of his most cherished characters: Frodo has no other choice than to use the power of the Ring to dominate Gollum, but he still pays for that immoral act when he is unable to complete his quest or to enjoy his life afterward. Can a company as intent upon domination as Amazon really understand this perspective — and adapt that morality to the screen?

If viewers find themselves disappointed by “The Rings of Power,” it will probably not be because the computer-generated imagery is second-rate or there are not enough fight sequences. It will be because the new adaptation lacks the literary and moral depth that make Middle-earth not just another cinematic universe but a world worth saving.

Interesting perspective. Read the whole thing.

But if his arguments have merit, they would seem to apply equally well to making video games...

[alwaysbroke]

It's nytimes. This is a paywall news site. It's impossible to read the article without encountering the paywall and you can't re-post it elsewhere without infringing on their rights.

[LagunaD2]

Sorry about that.

As a subscriber, I'm allowed to "gift" a limited number of articles, so I think this link should allow anyone to read it an unlimited number of times, for 14 days.

[alwaysbroke]

Oh Thank you.

This should be interesting then. I mean nytimes is a bezos owned thing so this is critical reviews from his own people...

I guess negative publicity works.

[Bothketbog]

Oh Thank you.

This should be interesting then. I mean nytimes is a bezos owned thing so this is critical reviews from his own people...

I guess negative publicity works.

No, he owns The Washington Post. He may own the Times some day....

[alwaysbroke]

i always get those two mixed up.

It's a good read. Not a review of the first two episodes at all. It's good to remember not all material translates well to big screen.

I think video games have an advantage here over purely visual media. Games are interactive. You can develop deep gameplay mechanics to show a moral story progressing. By interacting with the game you reinforce the point. You can retain the textured, poetic, literary side of the source material in a game. In a purely visual medium you need exceptional acting skill to achieve the same result. Even then there still no way to preserve the literary texture in a purely visual medium. This is probably the crux of most criticism. The source material is more than just hollywood style moral punchlines and heroic sacrifice.

[Thurallor]

You can also just disable JavaScript in your browser to be able to read the full article.

Reducing all of Tolkien's morality to concerns about power and the exercise thereof is overly simplistic. It's also regrettably unsurprising to hear from postmodern academia.

[LagunaD2]

In the narrative sense, interactivity in most video games (including LotRO) is completely illusory. It's only as "interactive" as turning the page of a book that's already written.

"Participatory" might be a better description, since questing involves jumping through various hoops set up by the quest designer, and occasionally completing some kind of challenge (albeit one where success is nearly always pre-ordained).

I think engaging fiction that extrapolates from Tolkien while remaining true to his vision should be possible in any medium.

[Radhruin_EU]

But if his arguments have merit, they would seem to apply equally well to making video games...

To a point, but there's a lot less of an expectation on games to be high art than there is with movies, for example. It's not as if you can't get moral depth or whatever in a game but it's comparatively rare and more the province of single-player RPGs than anything else.

[LagunaD2]

Reducing all of Tolkien's morality to concerns about power and the exercise thereof is overly simplistic.

Saying that the article reduced "all of Tolkien's morality" to any single idea is also overly simplistic.

The article highlighted one prominent theme to make a point.

[alwaysbroke]

One possibility is Amazon ends up glazing over texture to the source material. I think 1 billion would be a waste if the only reason is to create a "cinematic universe" like the author of the article describes. Really good directing/acting, and an effort to reinterpret these hard to translate parts of the source, will make or break this series.

I'm sure we'll know by a few more episodes.