Is The Lord of the Rings still relevant?

[Kolyarut]

Go ahead and tell me what else from Tolkien is in the already mentioned Dragon Age and Warhammer besides "has elves".

And how would I know I would find "universal disagreement"?

If you don't already understand that if there was no tolkien, there would be no DA or warhammer, then I am afraid I can't help you.

Why not, exactly? The myths the fantasy genre is based on existed before Tolkien. The fantasy genre existed before Tolkien. Alternative fantasy writers existed (I mentioned Michael Moorcock earlier, who was particularly dismissive of Tolkien). This argument seems to be pretty much like claiming "no sci fi without Star Wars" - you have to ignore a lot of stuff for it to make sense.

Yes and no

Creatures bearing the names existed beforehand, but there is almost no resemblance at all.

I'm going to take a gamble here and play the ace up my sleeve, a book I've never read.

1924's The King of Elfland's Daughter ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_King_of_Elfland%27s_Daughter ) is a pre-Tolkien fantasy novel featuring questing, elves, and magic swords, about a man who falls in love an elven princess. Tolkien didn't invent as much of this stuff as he's sometimes given credit for.

Also worth mentioning are the Conan stories in the 1930s, which set the ground for detailed fantasy words with fallen empires, swords and sorcery.

 

[Yopaz]

Lord of the Rings is one of the cornerstones of modern fantasy, even if there are tons of books that have done fantasy better and tons of books that presents better stories it's still ingrained in a good deal of modern fantasy books, movies and games. It's still relevant, but you could still say it's outdated, surpassed or overrated without being wrong.

The only author I have seen to match his brilliance is Robert Jordan.

 

[prpshrt]

Yes. There is no way that dragon age has as rich of a lore as LoTR. Heck a lot of the fantasy games like dragon age are still kinda loosely based on LoTR and draw inspiration from the mythos. Maybe warhammer might have as much depth and quantity lorewise as LoTR but I don't think its as popular

 

[Heronblade]

Why not, exactly? The myths the fantasy genre is based on existed before Tolkien. The fantasy genre existed before Tolkien. Alternative fantasy writers existed (I mentioned Michael Moorcock earlier, who was particularly dismissive of Tolkien). This argument seems to be pretty much like claiming "no sci fi without Star Wars" - you have to ignore a lot of stuff for it to make sense.

For a start, Star Wars is not really sci fi, its fantasy, but your analogy was not really appropriate at all, its more like 'no sci fi without H.G. Wells'. Was Wells the first science fiction writer? Nope. Still the godfather of the genre though. But the most important thing is the formula, which tolkien has imparted to the fantasy genre, which is so embedded in it, its hard to think of it existing without. Eldritch Warlord did a pretty good job of outlining the hall marks of this formula in DA to you.

In Dragon Age the Dwarves are cave Vikings who are renowned for their craftsmanship, practice ancestor worship, and generally fear open spaces (specifically the ocean with Tolkien and the surface in general with Dragon Age). The Elves were the "first race" who ruled the world with their powerful magic and impeccable engineering but now they favor dwelling in forests and are in decline because of humans.

The Tevinter Imperium is quite similar to the Númenóreans, they had powerful magic and lorded over "lesser races" of Men, they even both caused apocalyptic cataclysms by defying (the) God(s) and seeking to capture the sacred realm for themselves.

The Lord of the Rings and Dragon Age are both set in worlds similar to Medieval Europe in terms of politics and technology. Both also have a general theme of the world having declined from a more advanced and prosperous state.

It's not hard sci fi (the "sci" is light to nonexistent) but by any sensible measure the spaceships and interplanetary travel makes it sci fi - and I really don't see anything but the vaguest, vaguest storytelling formula from H.G. Wells in Mass Effect, Transformers or Men in Black (to pick three very random examples).

I'm not hugely familiar with the Dragon Age setting, but yes, it does seem to be more overtly influenced by Tolkien themes than most modern fantasy. The main recurring trend I see elsewhere though, in fully developed settings that aren't using very surface level fantasy elements as set dressing, is Tolkien aversion - people seem keen if anything to avoid a lot of this stuff.

Also - I'd query the Medieval Europe point - what I know about Tolkien's stuff always seemed far more Dark Ages in its setting (like Arthurian legend), where almost all contemporary fantasy tends towards a much later period (things like proper plate armour and crossbows are late medieval inventions).

-The comparison with H.G. Wells is a little weaker, but that has more to do with the subject matter of sci-fi changing every time modern understanding of science changes. The concepts are there, but unlike with Tolkien's influence, the visuals are all different.

-Tolkien aversion is definitely a thing, mostly because his influence is if anything too strong. The fantasy genre is swamped with copycats. How many high fantasy stories can you name in the past two decades that do not have a Tolkienish elf analogue?

-as for the late medieval/dark ages bit, are you basing that solely on tech level? If so you should be aware that crossbows and full plate armor were actually fairly common in the books. Few of the main characters used either, but that had more to do with the former not being at all well suited for travel, and the latter being less useful for a skilled marksman than a standard bow.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

Yeah.

Both the films and the books will stay relevant forever. The latter for setting the foundation for fantasy fiction as we know it, the former for setting the foundation and standard for book-to-screen adaptations done in giant blockbuster form. Little known franchises like Harry Potter, Twilight, Hunger Games and the Marvel Universe all owe a debt to LOTR.

Has the story grown stale after years of license-milking or has it simply being outdone by stuff like Warhammer and Dragon Age? What do you think?

Outdone? Outdone by freaking Warhammer of all things? One of the most tongue-in-cheek, over the top fantasy franchises ever? You had to pick that instead of something like A Song of Ice and Fire or Berserk? Ask your average person on the street about any of those and most likely they won't know any of them. But say "Lord of the Rings" and they'll likely have at least heard from it.

Though to be fair, the story's quality has IMO been outdone in spades. I've been reading Fellowship of the Ring, and it feels really clunky. I've found it's better to try to read it as a Beowulf-style folklore epic than a modern fantasy story, because otherwise you're just left with bland characters and other bugging annoyances, like the dialogue or the somewhat racist undertones of the world.

 

[GodzillaGuy92]

You do realize that the shameless lifting of Tolkien's ideas has been going on since almost the moment The Lord of the Rings was published sixty years ago, right? The entirety of the fantasy genre as we know it would be nothing like it is now were it not for that one book. Granted, the frequency of this has increased somewhat in recent years thanks to the films' immense popularity, but it's not even remotely a new thing. If The Lord of the Rings is irrelevant, then it was irrelevant way before you enjoyed it as a kid.

And claiming it is irrelevant is, for more than one reason, like claiming Watchmen is irrelevant to comic books, 1984 is irrelevant to dystopian satire, Super Mario Bros. is irrelevant to platformers, etc. 1) Because the fact that essentially every subsequent creation in its field owes something to it is exactly what indicates its relevance. The aimlessly derivative quality of any works that might follow makes them irrelevant, not the thing they're ripping off (and the implication that things like Dragon Age or Warhammer handily surpass it in quality - despite the genuine merits they do indeed both possess - is just silly). 2) Because The Lord of the Rings is a watershed artistic work, and all great works of art are necessarily relevant on that basis alone, even if that quality somehow fails to influence the works around them. It tells a great story that's emotionally engaging, interfaces with entire bodies of historical literature before it, and holds great thematic meaning; your description of Warhammer as an adoption of its surface tropes combined with "giant-weapon-badassery" simply stands not the slightest chance of competing. That doesn't mean you aren't allowed to get burnt out on The Lord of the Rings thanks to its pervasive quality, but that's a wholly external problem. You need only look to the appeal it held to you before you tired of it to see that the claim that your personal feelings toward it at the moment void of of all relevancy is a patently false one.

[sub][sub]And I just realized how a post like this sounds coming from someone with a Gollum avatar. Oh well.[/sub][/sub]

 

[Hero of Lime]

Considering almost ever medieval fantasy series takes inspiration from it/copies it in some way, it's still very much relevant in fantasy story-telling. How many fantasy stories have a racial breakdown of humans, elves, dwarfs, orcs? Lots of them. Plus, they always have Tolkien given properties, Yatzee already talked about this subject, may not always agree with him, but he was 100 percent correct in this regard.

If you don't care for Lord of the Rings, that's perfectly fine, but to say it is not relevant anymore just makes no sense.

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

Also - I'd query the Medieval Europe point - what I know about Tolkien's stuff always seemed far more Dark Ages in its setting (like Arthurian legend), where almost all contemporary fantasy tends towards a much later period (things like proper plate armour and crossbows are late medieval inventions).

I could just as readily say Dragon Age is set in the Dark Ages. Historians usually avoid saying Dark Ages anymore though, so the history of Europe between the 5th and 15th centuries is called the Middle Ages.

Though I suppose your point is that The Lord of the Rings books seem set in the Early Middle Ages while Dragon Age (and High Fantasy in general) seem set in the High Middle Ages. This is true, but I tend to think that's more a result of High Medieval technology and culture being more widely known and thoroughly documented (and interesting) than lack of inspiration from Tolkien.

1924's The King of Elfland's Daughter ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_King_of_Elfland%27s_Daughter ) is a pre-Tolkien fantasy novel featuring questing, elves, and magic swords, about a man who falls in love an elven princess. Tolkien didn't invent as much of this stuff as he's sometimes given credit for.

Also worth mentioning are the Conan stories in the 1930s, which set the ground for detailed fantasy words with fallen empires, swords and sorcery.

Tolkien intended to create a "British mythology" with his work, borrowing from Arthurian and Nordic myth to create a distinct legendarium. Other British writers who were inclined to write fantasy had the same source material.

Though the fact that "others did it first" is irrelevant. It's (fairly) uncontroversial to say that Halo had a great deal of influence on the FPS genre even though every mechanic it has was first explored by other games. Halo was influential because of popularity more than originality, so was The Lord of the Rings.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

I'm going to say it like this, LOTR is the blueprint for most high fantasy. Its popularity drove the foundation of D&D even if Gygax claimed he wasn't inspired by it he still gave credit to Tolkein's world for the formation of the elves, dwarves, orcs, halflings, treants, and demons (BALROG) citing that he just capitalized on the then popular surge of the books to sell his game to the masses and just changed some of the names but kept the archetype so it was recognizable.
Its also given life to scifi by breaking out of the traditional mold. As far as I'm aware before Tolkein, no one fleshed out their world with massive history and map making, details upon details that didn't exist.
The influences of those books led to movies that a lot of the people I know who read the books first were surprised at how closely Jackson's film vision fit within their own imagination of what Middle-Earth and its people looked like.
As I feel it is a blueprint from which most high fantasy still draws from and I've yet to see anything as revolutionary come about.
And Dragon Age did it better? REally? Dragon Age at best was a decent RPG with an ok storyline, but its no Lord of the Rings. It doesn't have that feeling that is evoked by Tolkein's attention to detail and I don't feel invested in the whole of its lore as much as I do LOTR.
If you're just going off the movies, well film isn't nearly as good as the original work. There were some significant departures despite Jackson nailing the tone and look and feel of the world of Middle-Earth and the Hobbit movie fails to capture the books essence and feels like a cheap cash-in with his splitting it into a trilogy... Sorry Pete, but you should have either left it at Return of the King or just made one good Hobbit movie. There is a lot of material in the Hobbit but you can't stretch it into 3 movies. You love that damn money too much bud, you sold out.
BTW even George Lucas has stated that Lord of the Rings heavily influenced Star Wars as much as any of the other things that drove him to write the original trilogy.
Without Tolkein, we may not have had SciFi and fantasy as we know it today. Oh and metal music has roots that can be tied to LOTR influence too... SEE: Led Zeppelin, RUSH, Blind Guardian...
Also Stephen King credits LOTR for his hit novel that also doubles as a paperweight, The Stand.

Do I need to go on? Or are you blinded by the things you probably knew you just didn't know you knew it...

 

[SecondPrize]

Considering that every fantasy work in the last half century at least has been influenced by it, I'd say it's till pretty relevant.

 

[RedDeadFred]

Considering how heavily high fantasy is based off of it, yes, LotR is still relevant and will probably always be relevant.

 

[Bombiz]

Fair enough that "rip-off" is too strong a term, however I think you're underplaying just how much is lifted from Tolkien. Old One/Chaos cosmology aside, the history of the world with the Elves being born on a mythical island inaccessible to most mortals, colonizing the world and then for the most part withdrawing, but not after making their mark on the first kingdoms of Men, it's all pretty much straight lifted from Tolkein. In the early days of Warhammer, before things like Orcs and Ogres were given clearer personalities, these things were also just fantasy tropes used because Tolkien made them popular. The characterization of the elves in particular is very Tolkien-esque, tall, fair, otherworldly... not at all like the competing D&D elf trope.

I mean, hell, part of the contractual agreement between GW and New Line Cinema to allow GW to sell LotR-miniatures famously prohibited GW from ever displaying Warhammer miniatures and LotR miniatures in the same contexts- going so far that at one point customers were prohibited from using conversions with parts from one line to make models for the other. That wouldn't have been necessary if the later product wasn't heavily derived from the former.

It is true that GW lifted more directly from other people (as you say, Moorcock.) However, I think my overall point- that LotR hasn't been overshadowed by Warhammer because Warhammer is ultimately a soulless, corporate monstrosity which has no creative drive beyond contriving reasons for people to buy over-priced miniatures for a shallow strategy game- still stands.

I'm just going to point out here that there are many people who like the Warhammer setting but still don't buy the overpriced miniatures. But instead use it's setting to create other works such as Call of Warhammer or Sundering: Rise of The witch king 2 amazing expansion like Mods (for total war) that are set in the Warhammer setting/universe. So...ya Warhammer isn't just meant for people to buy over-priced miniature. It can also be used for good

 

[Olas]

It's definitely still one of the best fantasy stories to date in my opinion. Mostly because it's had almost nothing but crap imitators till now.

Not to insult Warhammer, I'm largely unfamiliar with it.

Also: I like how LotR doesn't have an overloaded craptacular expanded universe to weigh down its integrity.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

I don't think it was ever 'relevant', I don't think it needs to be 'relevant', I don't think it's been milked in that the content associated with it is generally good and the trilogy has stayed itself, and I think setting the standard for fantasy fiction is more than Dragon Age or Warhammer have done.

 

[Robot Number V]

Exactly what the title says.

I used to watch LotR when I was a kid and I played many of the games, but I don't care about the universe anymore. Most of the once-groundbreaking ideas have become fantasy standards, so when I rewatch the old movies, I usually quit after about an hour; I haven't even bothered glancing at The Hobbit yet and have no intention of changing that.

Has the story grown stale after years of license-milking or has it simply being outdone by stuff like Warhammer and Dragon Age? What do you think?

Or, you know, you're just bored with it. That doesn't indicate some kind of culture-wide shift of interest away from Tolkien fiction. Besides, something doesn't have to be "ground breaking" to be good. Hell, I'm not sure they were ever "ground breaking" movies in anything other then special effects, but still like them.

Anyway, I'm not sure what you mean by "relevant". I think they're still enjoyable movies, so that makes them relevant to me. And there are lots of people to whom they were NEVER relevant. That hasn't changed, either. I can't see any evidence that suggests the number of people who care about Lord of the Rings is moving in any particular direction. So, uh....what exactly are you asking?

 

[Fox12]

Lord of the Rings is entirely relevant. The themes are still with us, and new generations will fall in love with the books, even if you've grown tired of them. Its the best fantasy series, by far. The depth found in The Silmarillion is absolutely staggering. The multiple real languages he created for his fictional stories are incredible. No author has ever produced something like that. Ever. Not Homer, not Virgil, not Dante. No one. He has many shallow imitators, but franchise vehicles like Dragon Age and Warhammer are laughably simplistic by comparison.

Tolkien isn't the best writer in the world (I don't think there is a 'best' writer) but he's brilliant at what he does. Lord of the Rings was probably the weakest of all his books, and it's still absolutely fantastic. I don't think Tolkien will ever stop being relevant. Other writers just need to realize that the only way to honor Tolkien is to do something completely different from him.

 

[Bombiz]

snip

i see your point and while i do agree with you that GM are soulless i'm still gonna hold true that Warhammer is, if not a good setting then at least a different one that has it's own uniqueness to it and i'm for one gonna still enjoy it.