Is The Lord of the Rings still relevant?

Recommended Videos

FalloutJack

Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
15,489
0
0
*Snerk*

You're serious, aren't you? Warhammer? It is to laugh, and so I shall.

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HAAA!!! [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3pr2cUC2Aw]

Anyway, I think you'll find that Tolkien's work is so conerstone in the development of fantasy that it is to be considered timeless and classic literature, the likes of which no orc can outrun no matter how red he is.
 

RJ 17

The Sound of Silence
Nov 27, 2011
8,687
0
0
Eldritch Warlord said:
RJ 17 said:
Really the only thing that makes LotR irrelevant is when you think how easy it would have been to break the story...namely the whole "Ummmmm...why didn't we just take the Eagles to Mordor?"
There's many counter-arguments to that.

The one I like most is that they couldn't possible hope to destroy the Ring if Sauron saw them coming, which he obviously would have if they just flew to Mount Doom.

There's also the fact that the Eagles are servants of Manwë who exist to observe the mortal realm, not alter its history. This is lost in the films but even rescuing Gandalf from Isengard was an uncomfortable grey area to them. In the book the Eagle complains that he "came to bear tidings, not burdens."
Pffft, Gandalf's a wizard, he would have smacked that bird and told it to quit its bitching. It's not "altering" history by helping to carry the ring to Mordor, it's making history! :p

And I'm pretty sure that Sauron as only able to direct his forces via the force of his will. Sure, the Nazgul would have been on to them and so would the orcish hordes, but neither really seemed to pose a threat to the giant birds.

Hehehe, but seriously, as I said in my original post: my personal preference for why they didn't use the eagles is the simplest one: the enjoyment of the story lies in the adventure of the journey, not in the end-outcome of that journey or how said outcome is reached.
 

PromethianSpark

New member
Mar 27, 2011
171
0
0
I am struggling to get my head around the OP. Oh you like fantasy right? Get down on your knees and thank Tolkien for that bro. So you find the movies boring? Who cares. Everyone has their tastes, and every one can get bored of things, but none of that says anything about the significance of said thing. Also, how do you enjoy your Tolkien? Is it a surface level viewing of LOTR, or are you steeped in the lore of the tolkienverse, because being in the latter, while not necessary for enjoyment, can really enhance your LOTR experience. Fun fact, the idea of dark elves isn't even a unique idea, they are a type of elf that inhabit middle-earth, the phrase was just lifted straight from tolkien and reimagined into actual 'dark' elves, just like all fantasy is a based on Tolkien.
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
Lord of the Rings has defined the face of high fantasy for more than seventy years. Chances are that neither Warhammer nor Dragon Age would exist without it. Without movies, games, or any other sort of spin-off- most of which are relatively late additions to the legacy of the thing- the original books would still be published, and continue to be read, and likely will continue to be read for another seventy years at least. Countless people who have never read Hemmingway, Faulkner, Shaw, or any of the other great authors of the 20th century still know and revere Tolkien; while many of those authors are consigned to neglected "literature" shelves, Tolkien still resides with modern authors on the science-fiction and fantasy shelves.

If they're still making Dragon Age in twenty years, I will be quite frankly astounded. Even Ultima only lasted that long if you use some tenuous definitions of "lasted".

Short answer: Yes, Lord of the Rings is still relevant, and it amazes me that the question needs to be asked.
 

PromethianSpark

New member
Mar 27, 2011
171
0
0
Heronblade said:
laide234 said:
I wouldn't be surprised if, in a couple of years, Hollywood also decides to make a Silmarillion movie/trilogy for even more money.
I actually hope they do not, The Silmarillion was written as a fairly dry history. There's no way in hell it will make for decent movie material without giving the writers a free hand to flesh out what's there. Given Hollywood's track record in such cases...
True, the Silmarillion could not translate into a movie at all, but it doesn't mean that we can't have movies that are based on events that happened in it. I mean, the first age was pretty fucking mental, some really cool shit went down then that is easily movie material. One of the problems though is how you depict Morgoth, seeing Sauron's appearance was actually based on him in the LOTR movies.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
13,054
6,748
118
Country
United Kingdom
PromethianSpark said:
I am struggling to get my head around the OP. Oh you like fantasy right? Get down on your knees and thank Tolkien for that bro. So you find the movies boring? Who cares. Everyone has their tastes, and every one can get bored of things, but none of that says anything about the significance of said thing. Also, how do you enjoy your Tolkien? Is it a surface level viewing of LOTR, or are you steeped in the lore of the tolkienverse, because being in the latter, while not necessary for enjoyment, can really enhance your LOTR experience. Fun fact, the idea of dark elves isn't even a unique idea, they are a type of elf that inhabit middle-earth, the phrase was just lifted straight from tolkien and reimagined into actual 'dark' elves, just like all fantasy is a based on Tolkien.
Tolkien did not come up with "dark elves". In Norse mythology, the Svartalfr are the basis for our depiction for Dwarves (stout, muscular, miners etc), and the name 'Svartalfr' translates into "dark elves".


Tolkien took a lot from Norse mythology. I'm not saying his stories are unoriginal-- his universe is incredibly rich and contains an incredible amount of original stuff. However, he took at least as much from Norse mythology as other authors took from him.
 

PromethianSpark

New member
Mar 27, 2011
171
0
0
Pixelspeech said:
I am intrigued to see so many responses in favor of the series, since the people in my direct environment seemed to agree with me. As for Dragon Age and Warhammer they both took Lord of the Rings as a foundation and then build something else on top of it; paladins versus mages and giant-weapon-baddassary respectively.
In your direct environment? May I ask, what age are you, and what age are your peers that agree with you? Furthermore, again I ask, how steeped are you in tolkien lore? Are the movies the extent of your knowledge? Because if they are, then we shouldn't really be having this conversation.

Fantasy as a genre is a pretty cool thing, and one of the things that makes fantasy so cool is not that its all based on tolkien, but how at times it subverts tolkien. 'Good Orcs? Wow that's so cool because orcs are bad! Small elves that aren't particularly fair of form, live in degrading slumes and are the victims of institutionalised racism? Thats so cool! Because elves are tall, fair of form, noble, lofty, and stand above the other races!'

You see where I am going with this. None these things have any significance with out reference to the base line that is Tolkiens work.
 

PromethianSpark

New member
Mar 27, 2011
171
0
0
Silvanus said:
Tolkien did not come up with "dark elves". In Norse mythology, the Svartalfr are the basis for our depiction for Dwarves (stout, muscular, miners etc), and the name 'Svartalfr' translates into "dark elves".


Tolkien took a lot from Norse mythology. I'm not saying his stories are unoriginal-- his universe is incredibly rich and contains an incredible amount of original stuff. However, he took at least as much from Norse mythology as other authors took from him.
I am aware of this, and I agree for the most part. But what Tolkien did was that he took these things from Norse mythology and contextualised them into a world of his own creation. To people living post Tolkien who are accustomed to fantasy, this doesn't seem like a big deal, but thats only because its common practice in fantasy now, Tolkien made the mould.
 

Petromir

New member
Apr 10, 2010
593
0
0
RJ 17 said:
Eldritch Warlord said:
RJ 17 said:
Really the only thing that makes LotR irrelevant is when you think how easy it would have been to break the story...namely the whole "Ummmmm...why didn't we just take the Eagles to Mordor?"
There's many counter-arguments to that.

The one I like most is that they couldn't possible hope to destroy the Ring if Sauron saw them coming, which he obviously would have if they just flew to Mount Doom.

There's also the fact that the Eagles are servants of Manwë who exist to observe the mortal realm, not alter its history. This is lost in the films but even rescuing Gandalf from Isengard was an uncomfortable grey area to them. In the book the Eagle complains that he "came to bear tidings, not burdens."
Pffft, Gandalf's a wizard, he would have smacked that bird and told it to quit its bitching. It's not "altering" history by helping to carry the ring to Mordor, it's making history! :p

And I'm pretty sure that Sauron as only able to direct his forces via the force of his will. Sure, the Nazgul would have been on to them and so would the orcish hordes, but neither really seemed to pose a threat to the giant birds.

Hehehe, but seriously, as I said in my original post: my personal preference for why they didn't use the eagles is the simplest one: the enjoyment of the story lies in the adventure of the journey, not in the end-outcome of that journey or how said outcome is reached.
Gandalf himeself was limited in his remit to use his powers, and even act. While certain allowances were made, especially after the depth of Saraumans treachery was known and his return to Middle Earth as Gandalf the White post Balrog fight.

It is certainly stated that any overt attempt to take the ring to mount doom is doomed to fail as it will be noticed. This is the reason why even though at rivendel there are some truely mighty warriors (Glorfindel) they are left behind as a sixable group of warriors of such power would be to obvious.

Also remember that by the time the fellbeasts and the eagles meet, the Witch King is out of the picture and he alone on a fell beast would make things very tricky. Pretty much the only conflict they eagles take part in in the books is the battle at the gates of moria, and even when the eagles turn up the forces of 'good' are very much losing badly, and the eagles are just delaying the inevitable, the battle is won by the ring being dropped into the firey lava of mount doom.
 

madwarper

New member
Mar 17, 2011
1,841
0
0
Am I sensing a "why is Half Life considered good? it's just like all other FPS" type of thread?
Eldritch Warlord said:
There's also the fact that the Eagles are servants of Manwë who exist to observe the mortal realm, not alter its history. This is lost in the films but even rescuing Gandalf from Isengard was an uncomfortable grey area to them. In the book the Eagle complains that he "came to bear tidings, not burdens."
RJ 17 said:
I don't see that as a 'grey area', since Gandalf, and the other 4 Maiar of the white council, were sent to Middle Earth to act on behalf of the Valar to aid the Free Peoples against Sauron. The eagles merely lent aid to one of Manwe's fellow agents.
TheMigrantSoldier said:
Elves should be a race of perfect Mary Sues who love nature,
I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Consider the kinslaying by Feanor, the blood-oath his sons took upon his death, not to mention the actions of Eol, etc. Elves are not 'perfect'.
 

CaptainCliche

New member
Feb 15, 2010
17
0
0
laide234 said:
Well, there's another Hobbit movie coming out in a couple of weeks that will make millions of dollars. On the strength of that alone, I'd say LOTR is still relevant.

I wouldn't be surprised if, in a couple of years, Hollywood also decides to make a Silmarillion movie/trilogy for even more money.
They couldn't make a Silmarillion movie even if they wanted to. The rights are still owned by Christopher Tolkien, and has come out publicly in saying he will not sell them. He utterly detests the Lord of the rings movie adaption.
 

dangoball

New member
Jun 20, 2011
555
0
0
Is Plato still relevant in philosophy? Is Issac Newton still relevant in physics? Here lays your answer.

As long as we build on or react to someone's work, that person will remain relevant in his/hers respective field.
 

Mr_Spanky

New member
Jun 1, 2012
152
0
0
The phrase "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" springs into mind. Or perhaps "standing on the shoulders of giants".

I'm sorry but the depth and care Tolkien took over his Universe is so immense that there simply is no reasonable comparison to be drawn with such things as Warhammer and Dragon Age. Not that I'm necessarily saying that lore of WH and DA are bad (although sometimes . . .) but they're paper thin compared to LoTR.

LoTR is relevant (and the rest of Tolkein's work) in the same way that Shakespeare and Orwell still are - they may have had over the years many, MANY imitators but they were the first to write THAT kind of story in THAT kind of way. The freshness of that genuine inspiration burns itself into their stories in a way that their imitators simply cannot.
 

Kolyarut

New member
Nov 19, 2012
116
0
0
DANGER- MUST SILENCE said:
Erm... I can't speak to Dragon Age, but Warhammer is nothing but a shallow rip-off of LotR with some extra stuff thrown in to sell more armies. It will never outdo LotR as consumable media, simply on the basis that LotR exists to serve Tolkein's artistic vision while Warhammer exists to sell plastic miniatures to people who have low standards for strategy games.
I don't think that's true at all... the Warhammer world borrows a great deal from a great many sources but I don't see a whole lot of it coming from Tolkien. The foundation of the world is Renaissance-era Europe with liberal dashes of Michael Moorcock.

The high elves are loosely comparable to Tolkien elves (the Wood Elves and the Dark Elves very much aren't), the dwarves are pretty much similar, and the halflings are directly lifted (though they're barely a factor in the setting) but beyond that - the technology is different, the magic is different, the orcs are wildly different, you have Ogres, Lizardmen, Skaven and Beastmen that have no LotR analogue at all - I'd say you'd have an easier time pointing out what *is* similar, but I already covered that, it's three things.

Off the Warhammer point, I'm of the camp that would agree that most of the Tolkien influence on the fantasy genre has been diluted to the point of irrelevance now - most of the stuff that has stuck around these days has gone through the D&D filter and is much more directly linked to that (though D&D will go the same way if they don't do something to regain the ground they're losing to videogames).
 

GundamSentinel

The leading man, who else?
Aug 23, 2009
4,448
0
0
Pixelspeech said:
Exactly what the title says.

I used to watch LotR when I was a kid...
You have no idea how old that makes me feel, when in my mind the release of the Lord of the Rings movies was a pretty recent affair. :D
...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.
You do know that the Lord of the Rings was published in 1954, right? You're right that they've become fantasy standards, but it's been that way for the past 60 years. Basically every modern fantasy story you'll find owes something to Tolkien.
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?
Haha! Good one!

No, I think it's more the modern audience that can't enjoy a story without a battle every five minutes.
 

KorfZin

New member
Sep 16, 2013
10
0
0
Very little of what is derided as LotR-derivative have anything but the most shallow elements in common with their supposed source.
 

weirdsoup

New member
Jul 28, 2010
126
0
0
Tolkien pretty much created what we now know as the fantasy genre. That's not to say there weren't stories of this type before Tolkien, but he pretty much re-wrote the rule book and now his ideas and the world he created are what virtually every fantasy story, film or game will immediately draw the comparisons back to Tolkien.
 

Mylinkay Asdara

Waiting watcher
Nov 28, 2010
934
0
0
Pixelspeech said:
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?
I think, from your post's content, that you are confusing "relevant" with "fresh" or "exciting." Relevancy is pretty much an indisputable quality that Tolkien's work has earned by packaging previous mythos content into a cohesive and updated package that provides the basis for much of fantasy related writing (books, games, video games, etc.) into the present day - and is expected to do so into the foreseeable future. Some of the other posts here mention and/or detail that.

As far as "fresh" and "exciting," maybe not so much. I mean, we know now what we expect to see and hear and know when we are presented with words like "Elf" and "Dwarf" and "goblin" etc. etc. These weren't new "fresh" concepts when Tolkien introduced his impressions of them either. There's been a troll under the bridge since bridges have existed. Are they still enjoyable? Tolkien's work is, in my personal opinion, immortal. I am a fan who reads the trilogy annually, of course, so take that for what you will.

Imitation, repetition, borrowing, and re-imaginings do not, for me, change the quality of Tolkien, which is really why his became the standard for so long. It's an extremely well put together world with multifaceted characters all working without totally overpowering any other element of the story. It's a damn masterpiece is what it is. So, no. I don't think it's lost anything with time. That would be like saying spending time on Deviant Art reduces the splendor of the masterworks of art we have in the world.

More good things existing doesn't diminish the good things that already exist in the world of creative expression the way they do in the world of electronic devices. A better iPad comes out? Yours isn't as good anymore. Simple as that. Electronics can be quantified exactly in all their parameters that are objective. Art is subjective, the quantification process isn't exact and it isn't universal. Even if something better than Tolkien comes into being, even if it is replaced as the standard (a thing almost unthinkable at present), it would not diminish Tolkien's work simply by existing. Some people would still prefer Tolkien to the new thing. Just like some people might not give a moment's thought to the new iPad, even though it is quantifiably better than their old one, for some subjective reason - perhaps the new functionality is one they will not use, and therefore irrelevant to them, perhaps their grandma who passed way last year gave them this one, imbuing it with a sentimental value, whatever.

Okay that got a little ramble. TLDR: No relevance lost. No greatness lost. Not that I can see anyway.

Oh, and if all you've experienced of LoTR is the movies and game? go read the books. Please. Don't cheat yourself of some of the finest fantasy literature around just because you think the movie and the games have already got you covered on "knowing the story." Extensive liberties were taken by both that diminished the products in which they were taken when compared to the original story and its nearly perfect blend of components. King Theoden was not that cranky. Faramir was nothing like Boromir. Other contradictions await you in the written word.
 

The White Hunter

Basment Abomination
Oct 19, 2011
3,888
0
0
JoJo said:
I don't really think that two trilogies of films based on the original books, a few cartoons from decades ago and a handful of video games are enough to count as 'licence-milking', especially when you compare it to the amount of material that's come out from other mass-appeal franchises (see Star Wars, Star Trek, Harry Potter etc).

At-least Lord of the Rings 2: Electric Boogaloo by [insert random author who isn't Tolkien] isn't coming out in 2015.
Is it bad that I totally want that to be a real thing? Possibly some kind of TF2 crossover?