MarvinTheParanoidAndroid
This will all end in tears, I just know it.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Tolkien general thread -
- Thread starter Finrod Felagund
- Start date
Apparently these will be added to a decades-old database of Tolkien papers.
MarvinTheParanoidAndroid
This will all end in tears, I just know it.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
That doesn't tell me what the fuck it is. Why are people speculating about Tolkien being a progressive?
- Highlight
- #24
The answer is simple. These people are entitled narcissists. They can't connect with any piece of fiction without it relating directly to themselves. It's why they shout for representation from Authors, even after they're dead. Where's the Black People? Where's the Gay people? Where's the Fat people? Where are they in this work of fiction? After all, if they don't have a physical representation of themselves or other woke factors, this work is a problem. Because it shouldn't make money without satisfying them.
And Tolkien is merely the next in line in a series of geek properties they need to bend, twist, and deviate in order for them to "enjoy" it. But they actually don't. Not really. Because if these people - these braindead leftist women and men, because that's who they are; they're certainly not conservative - actually loved the series, they'd treat it with respect as so many before them did. Criticize where they see flaws, but also enhance where the brilliance is. Yet that's not what they want because Tolkien represents exactly what they hate. A straight, white, christian male who is still successful decades after his death. Whose books probably sell out way more than their crappy self-woke fest novels. And instead of stepping back and assessing why nerds continue to love his works, they have to criticize it for having things they believe it lacks.
Degeneracy, joggers, troons, and 'disabilities'.
Because after all, if you call attention to how medieval this text is - oh, but hey, they also rewrite history so there were totally troons and non-binaries narcs in those times, making Tolkien an extra-bigot for not highlighting them - then people have to look at these books in a different light. A negative one. And maybe that'll get you sales on your shit. Or the even better holy grail.
You'll get praised on twitter.
Let the papers flow.
I was quietly raging about this grabtastic bullshit in the SJW thread.
It's faggots trying to read all their kinks and obsessions into Tolkien's work so it'll 'validate' them.
It's faggots trying to read all their kinks and obsessions into Tolkien's work so it'll 'validate' them.
I (Don't) Have A Gun
kiwifarms.net
Yes because you really get the impression that what Tolkien wanted was to interject everyday nonsense and politics into his stories...
:gold:
kiwifarms.net
KEKMUHLORD
kiwifarms.net
The Tolkien society has been dogshit for a good while now.
They want to be noticed so bad. So they will do stupid shit like this. Just to get a few likes on social media.
I pretty much just ignore everything they do and have for awhile.
They are also probably doing this to try and justify whatever fucking awful shit the Amazon series is gonna have in it.
They want to be noticed so bad. So they will do stupid shit like this. Just to get a few likes on social media.
I pretty much just ignore everything they do and have for awhile.
They are also probably doing this to try and justify whatever fucking awful shit the Amazon series is gonna have in it.
Just finished The LOTR books.
Here are some hot takes, disorganized thoughts and comparisons to the films. I used the Rob Inglis audiobook and would highly recommend it. Hell, I'd even argue that you should use it. If you want it for free just message me.
Book 1 and 2
Jackson's Fellowship really was a perfect adaption. Having watched the films first its hard not to constantly make comparisons.
Sure the films effectively cut out Maggot, Butterbur, Bombadil, and a few other great characters but I think them being book fan exclusives fine. Not really butthurt about that at all. I'd actually argue that the first film makes up for this by significantly improving many characters, especially, Boromir, Merry, and Pippin. Boromir should probably be represented as more prideful and arrogant, but hammering home that he is a great person before his death makes it far more meaningful. In books you learn about that more later. Marie and Pippin being comic relief in the film works, but you also don't get the payoff of seeing them liberate the shire in the finale which is kinda the completion of their arc. Gimli being a simp was interesting, but I guess that lady was worth it.
Book 3 and 4
I dunno what ethnic group these Tolkien Society papers compare the Ents to, but they were pretty interesting. Ent characters being cut makes sense since the only the one that actually gets any meaningful attention in the books is Treebeard anyway.
The films death of Saruman isn't really non-canon, just done earlier. Not really a fan of the film having Saruman directly control Theoden as the whole point in my view is that it was Wormtongue controlling him as a paid off agent who uses intrigue.
Helms deep is 1000% better in the movies, but the the overall chaos of Rohan is best described by the book.
Faramir gets done dirty in the films, simple as. I don't see the films detour as an improvement, but I don't see it as a failing either due to Sam's speech.
Book 5 and 6
Denethor gets done dirty, and not in a way that adds drama or even improves the story. I would count this as a sin against the films. The steward should not just be a degenerate, but rather a wise man who has failed and succumb to hopelessness like so many other characters in the story including even the main cast.
The battle of the Pellanor is 1000% better in the books, especially with how its cut to happen in a way where Theoden dying on the fields of Pellanor and the Wraith being destroyed directly inspire Frodo. This battle really felt almost like reading Beowulf and reading about the battle of the Catalounian fields. The ghosts thing is retarded in both the books and films, sorry Tolkien.
The films cutting of the part where Sam believed Frodo was dead and took the ring, only to abandon the mission to save Frodo is just shameful. Its one of the best parts about Sam as he basically succumbs to hopelessness and decides to go out dying to save his master. The films whole thing about Frodo believing Gollum was downright retarded.
The finale is just legendary. Sam sparing Gollum one last time and Gollum dying in careless jubilant celebration rather than in a fight with Frodo is far more appropriate and meaningful. Other than that the films handled it amazingly well.
The films didn't have the time for it so I 100% forgive Jackson for this, but liberation of the Shire sorta completes the story and shows the transition to the new age of man. Its not magic that creates problem, but silver tongued men and systems/states. Great warriors like Merry and Pippin are the heroes, while kind souls who preach mercy like Frodo are forgotten. Kinda funny that the Tooks were actually the badass warrior Hobbits the whole time.
General thoughts on race controversy.
I literally do not see how Orcs are supposed to be black people or how this is a race war. Indian/Persian/Arab-like people are shown as helping Sauron but only as auxiliary allies who have a personal grudge against Gondor for actually being wronged by them. The films really like orcs and goblins, but it seems like most of Sauron's and Saruman's armies were local lighter skinned men who had valid grudges or enslaved goblins and orcs.
Here are some hot takes, disorganized thoughts and comparisons to the films. I used the Rob Inglis audiobook and would highly recommend it. Hell, I'd even argue that you should use it. If you want it for free just message me.
Book 1 and 2
Jackson's Fellowship really was a perfect adaption. Having watched the films first its hard not to constantly make comparisons.
Sure the films effectively cut out Maggot, Butterbur, Bombadil, and a few other great characters but I think them being book fan exclusives fine. Not really butthurt about that at all. I'd actually argue that the first film makes up for this by significantly improving many characters, especially, Boromir, Merry, and Pippin. Boromir should probably be represented as more prideful and arrogant, but hammering home that he is a great person before his death makes it far more meaningful. In books you learn about that more later. Marie and Pippin being comic relief in the film works, but you also don't get the payoff of seeing them liberate the shire in the finale which is kinda the completion of their arc. Gimli being a simp was interesting, but I guess that lady was worth it.
Book 3 and 4
I dunno what ethnic group these Tolkien Society papers compare the Ents to, but they were pretty interesting. Ent characters being cut makes sense since the only the one that actually gets any meaningful attention in the books is Treebeard anyway.
The films death of Saruman isn't really non-canon, just done earlier. Not really a fan of the film having Saruman directly control Theoden as the whole point in my view is that it was Wormtongue controlling him as a paid off agent who uses intrigue.
Helms deep is 1000% better in the movies, but the the overall chaos of Rohan is best described by the book.
Faramir gets done dirty in the films, simple as. I don't see the films detour as an improvement, but I don't see it as a failing either due to Sam's speech.
Book 5 and 6
Denethor gets done dirty, and not in a way that adds drama or even improves the story. I would count this as a sin against the films. The steward should not just be a degenerate, but rather a wise man who has failed and succumb to hopelessness like so many other characters in the story including even the main cast.
The battle of the Pellanor is 1000% better in the books, especially with how its cut to happen in a way where Theoden dying on the fields of Pellanor and the Wraith being destroyed directly inspire Frodo. This battle really felt almost like reading Beowulf and reading about the battle of the Catalounian fields. The ghosts thing is retarded in both the books and films, sorry Tolkien.
The films cutting of the part where Sam believed Frodo was dead and took the ring, only to abandon the mission to save Frodo is just shameful. Its one of the best parts about Sam as he basically succumbs to hopelessness and decides to go out dying to save his master. The films whole thing about Frodo believing Gollum was downright retarded.
The finale is just legendary. Sam sparing Gollum one last time and Gollum dying in careless jubilant celebration rather than in a fight with Frodo is far more appropriate and meaningful. Other than that the films handled it amazingly well.
The films didn't have the time for it so I 100% forgive Jackson for this, but liberation of the Shire sorta completes the story and shows the transition to the new age of man. Its not magic that creates problem, but silver tongued men and systems/states. Great warriors like Merry and Pippin are the heroes, while kind souls who preach mercy like Frodo are forgotten. Kinda funny that the Tooks were actually the badass warrior Hobbits the whole time.
General thoughts on race controversy.
I literally do not see how Orcs are supposed to be black people or how this is a race war. Indian/Persian/Arab-like people are shown as helping Sauron but only as auxiliary allies who have a personal grudge against Gondor for actually being wronged by them. The films really like orcs and goblins, but it seems like most of Sauron's and Saruman's armies were local lighter skinned men who had valid grudges or enslaved goblins and orcs.
I feel like this may be a reaction to the "Tolkien is racist" thing. They're like, "wait, I like these books so he was actually progressive". I really feel like he'd be have been a Labor voter who hates current Labor, or Red Tory if he was still alive. Dumb speculation aside, I 100% doubt he'd be a wokescold or neoliberal bootstrap person.
Even though there's some stuff in the LOTR films that irk me a bit after I read the books, it's still a perfect compliment to the series and continues to hold up even after all this time. I can go through the books and then seamlessly hit the movies without any issue, and I'm really glad they were made at a time when CGI wasn't so prevalent so you got practical effects, but also before the majority of this wokeshit infestation. Faramir was done dirty, but his actor was at least darling to look at, and just how I imagined Faramir to be. Actually, a lot of them were.
RIP Christopher Lee, you were the best Saurman. I would have equally have paid to see him as Gandalf too.
This does not extend to the newer Hobbit movies, though. Those are a poor adaptation and, in general, not very good movies. But that was probably doomed from the start, because the Hobbit is a completely different tone from LOTR and not only did they have to change that to fit with LOTR otherwise it would be weird for moviegoers expecting LOTR Take Two, it also fell into prequel bait territory - referencing the LOTR where it could and also trying to be grander at it. I still haven't re-watched the last movie from the first time I saw it and really have no wish to, whereas I could throw on any of the LOTR movies at any time.
Still. Those movies are better than any of the papers submitted to the Tolkien Society this year, which would even be unfit to light the fireplace in the Tolkien Estate. Pity we've come to this.
Last edited:
I can't watch the films after the first viewing. I saw the first two and only parts of the third, and that was enough for me. They could snip out Tom Bombadil, Glorfindel and a million songs. That's alright, and understandable, but they messed about with the personalities and meaning of so many of the characters that were left, and I can't accept it was for the expediency of cramming it all into a two hour runtime.
Also, there are a lot of changes that are too on the nose, or in your face. I get that it's fantasy, fantastical things are supposed to happen, but did Theoden need to be a literal marionette in Sarumans clutches, and did 'many lines of care were wiped away' need to be a literal transformation from Howard Hughes to Santa Claus? There are lots of other things like that, many of them small, petty things to mention, but they add up.
You could expect these things when you hand the adaptation of some of the most popular fiction in the world to someone best known for schlocky, junky zombie flicks. I say the LotR trilogy didn't succeed because of Peter Jackson, but despite him. It succeeded because of the base story underneath it, and the army of concept artists including longtime Tolkien illustrators and effects people put to work on it. Also, what do I know, but I'd contend that it's difficult to fuck up sweeping shots of majestic mountain ranges, especially if you throw enough money at them.
Look at what he's done since. The Hobbit trilogy is what is what happens when you pull Tolkien apart even more, and stuff even more Jackson into the gaps.
The irony is I only started reading the books because I heard there was a film trilogy in the works.
Also, there are a lot of changes that are too on the nose, or in your face. I get that it's fantasy, fantastical things are supposed to happen, but did Theoden need to be a literal marionette in Sarumans clutches, and did 'many lines of care were wiped away' need to be a literal transformation from Howard Hughes to Santa Claus? There are lots of other things like that, many of them small, petty things to mention, but they add up.
You could expect these things when you hand the adaptation of some of the most popular fiction in the world to someone best known for schlocky, junky zombie flicks. I say the LotR trilogy didn't succeed because of Peter Jackson, but despite him. It succeeded because of the base story underneath it, and the army of concept artists including longtime Tolkien illustrators and effects people put to work on it. Also, what do I know, but I'd contend that it's difficult to fuck up sweeping shots of majestic mountain ranges, especially if you throw enough money at them.
Look at what he's done since. The Hobbit trilogy is what is what happens when you pull Tolkien apart even more, and stuff even more Jackson into the gaps.
The irony is I only started reading the books because I heard there was a film trilogy in the works.
Well, some news I noticed today.
tl;dr: The Society of Tolkien is having a seminar the same time as the Tolkien Woke Society on topics more about the analysis and themes of the books rather than Where's the Joggers and Troons. Honestly, I wish them well. I hope it's a big success.
The Society Of Tolkien Launches Counter-Programming In Response To The Tolkien Society’s “Tolkien And Diversity” Seminar
Article Link
The Society of Tolkien recently announced a counter program to The Tolkien Society’s upcoming “Tolkien And Diversity” seminar.
The Tolkien Society previously announced their Tolkien And Diversity seminar back in February.
They explained what exactly the seminar would focus on in a call for papers by asking, “How do adaptations of Tolkien’s works (from film and art to music) open a discourse on diversity within Tolkien’s works and his place within modern society?”
They further stated, “Beyond his secondary-world, diversity further encompasses Tolkien’s readership and how his texts exist within the primary world.”
They then asked, “Who is reading Tolkien? How is he understood around the globe? How may these new readings enrich current perspectives on Tolkien?”
“Representation is now more important than ever and Tolkien’s efforts to represent (or ignore) particular characteristics requires further examination,” The Tolkien Society declared.
“Additionally, how a character’s identity shapes and influences its place within Tolkien’s secondary-world still requires greater attention,” they added.
Specifically they claim “this seminar aims to explore the many possible applications of ‘diversity’ within Tolkien’s works, his adaptations, and his readership.”
As for the topics for the papers they wanted, they provided a list:
They include:
Now, The Society of Tolkien has launched a counter program that will run on July 3rd.
The Society of Tolkien explains the purpose of their seminar, “When J.R.R. Tolkien created Middle Earth, he filled it with characters, themes, and dangers that leapt from the pages to intrigue, excite, and give hope to his readers. In these sessions, we’ll explore these concepts to celebrate all that makes his works stand the test of time and what we should take from them today.”
They are still accepting topics for submissions and provided a list of recommendations:
They include:
Which seminar will you be attending?
The Society of Tolkien recently announced a counter program to The Tolkien Society’s upcoming “Tolkien And Diversity” seminar.
The Tolkien Society previously announced their Tolkien And Diversity seminar back in February.
They explained what exactly the seminar would focus on in a call for papers by asking, “How do adaptations of Tolkien’s works (from film and art to music) open a discourse on diversity within Tolkien’s works and his place within modern society?”
They further stated, “Beyond his secondary-world, diversity further encompasses Tolkien’s readership and how his texts exist within the primary world.”
They then asked, “Who is reading Tolkien? How is he understood around the globe? How may these new readings enrich current perspectives on Tolkien?”
“Representation is now more important than ever and Tolkien’s efforts to represent (or ignore) particular characteristics requires further examination,” The Tolkien Society declared.
“Additionally, how a character’s identity shapes and influences its place within Tolkien’s secondary-world still requires greater attention,” they added.
Specifically they claim “this seminar aims to explore the many possible applications of ‘diversity’ within Tolkien’s works, his adaptations, and his readership.”
As for the topics for the papers they wanted, they provided a list:
- Representation in Tolkien’s works (race, gender, sexuality, disability, class, religion, age etc.)
- Tolkien’s approach to colonialism and post-colonialism
- Adaptations of Tolkien’s works
- Diversity and representation in Tolkien academia and readership
- Identity within Tolkien’s works
- Alterity in Tolkien’s works
They include:
- Gondor in Transition: A Brief Introduction to Transgender Realities in The Lord of the Rings
- The Problem of Pain: Portraying Physical Disability in the Fantasy of J. R. R. Tolkien
- “The Burnt Hand Teaches Most About Fire”: Applying Traumatic Stress and Ecological Frameworks to Narratives of Displacement and Resettlement Across Cultures in Tolkien’s Middle-earth
- The Invisible Other: Tolkien’s Dwarf-Women and the ‘Feminine Lack’
- Projecting Indian Myths, Culture and History onto Tolkien’s Worlds
- The Lossoth: Indigeneity, Identity, and Antiracism
- The Problematic Perimeters of Elrond Half-elven and Ronald English-Catholic
- Hearkening to the Other: Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth
- Pardoning Saruman?: The Queer in Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings
- Desire of the Ring: An Indian Academic’s Adventures in her Quest for the Perilous Realm
- Queer Atheists, Agnostics, and Animists, Oh, My!
- Hidden Visions: Iconographies of Alterity in Soviet Bloc Illustrations for The Lord of the Rings
- Questions of Caste in The Lord of the Rings and its Multiple Chinese Translations
- Stars Less Strange: An Analysis of Fanfiction and Representation within the Tolkien Fan Community
- “Something Mighty Queer”: Destabilizing Cishetero Amatonormativity in the Works of Tolkien
- Translation as a means of representation and diversity in Tolkien’s scholarship and fandom
Now, The Society of Tolkien has launched a counter program that will run on July 3rd.
The Society of Tolkien explains the purpose of their seminar, “When J.R.R. Tolkien created Middle Earth, he filled it with characters, themes, and dangers that leapt from the pages to intrigue, excite, and give hope to his readers. In these sessions, we’ll explore these concepts to celebrate all that makes his works stand the test of time and what we should take from them today.”
They are still accepting topics for submissions and provided a list of recommendations:
- Analysis of characters, situations, and linguistics in the books
- Military doctrine and tactics portrayed in the books or movies
- Themes, lessons, and allegories drawn from or used by Tolkien
- Works influenced by Tolkien’s writing
- Works which influenced Tolkien’s writing
- Middle Earth history
They include:
- Concepts not included in Tolkien’s writing
- The Black Speech of Mordor
- General foolishness
Which seminar will you be attending?
tl;dr: The Society of Tolkien is having a seminar the same time as the Tolkien Woke Society on topics more about the analysis and themes of the books rather than Where's the Joggers and Troons. Honestly, I wish them well. I hope it's a big success.
Decisions, decisions.
I like how even the name is the reverse of the Tolkien Society. It sounds like there's someone with a sense of humor in there.
Don't worry, I speak jive.
I think the Jackson movies were helped by Christopher Lee actually knowing Tolkien.
Warkrieg Battlebournion
kiwifarms.net
I hear Tolkien even wanted Lee to be Gandalf if there'd ever be an adaption. I'm kind of torn. Ian Mckellen, flamingo rainbow faglord that he is, was a phenomenal Gandalf, I think, and Lee was a damn phenomenal Saruman, better than he'd have been as Gandalf.
McKellen definitely embodied the role fantastically and I honestly have a hard time trying to picture Gandalf as anyone but him when I read, but I would have loved to see Christopher Lee take on the role as well. I think it would have been nice to see it once, even if it was a play, because I'm sure it would have given another amazing performance for everyone to enjoy. But we did get his narration the audiobook for Children of Húrin, so that's a compromise I can take. And he did sing Treebeard's song for The Tolkien Ensemble, which I think he did a swell job at.
I know he died at 93, which is a pretty respectable age, but I wish he lived a bit longer because I think he would have been great narrating Beren and Lúthien and The Fall of Gondolin
I know he died at 93, which is a pretty respectable age, but I wish he lived a bit longer because I think he would have been great narrating Beren and Lúthien and The Fall of Gondolin
I don’t like the films. I think the only part that nails it is the music, Howard Shores work is iconic and fantastic. The tone is off, the colors are wrong, and the acting in general is too stiff or overly melodramatic. It would have been better served as an animated series, so long as it wasn’t animated by Bakshi. Animation would be the perfect medium to capture the fairy tale spirit as Tolkiens sketches and paintings are beautiful.
Similar threads
Smaller art-related dramas and artcows not prominent enough for their own thread
Autistic Baked Alaska hanger-on and Jewish white nationalist meth head wigger with a terminal case of jungle fever who wants everyone to know that just because he had sex with a 13 year-old doesn't mean he's a pedophile.
