Please no more, I’m tired boss…
The last, tiny shred of respect I had for this asshole is gone. No real Tolkien fan would participate in this trash. He really is a complete phony, 100% through.
We've already got peak LOTR fanfic
>>25163527They’re really out to destroy the profs legacy huh? This all started with the publication of the Silmarillion thougheverbiet.
>>25163527our boy is gonna land on his feet
>>25163527terrible, that's just fucking terrible
What does this nigga know about making movies
>>25163527you are just jealous because you wish you got this opportunity kek
>>25163587If I could make a movie, the last thing I would want to do is franchise fanfiction.
>>25163531This was quinoa
Even Tom Shippey says they should stop trying to make LOTR movies. He said they need to instead film the Lyonesse trilogy by Jack Vance.
>>25163529>No real Tolkien fan would participate in this trashPretty sure Tolkien fans are notorious for making fanfiction.
>>25163527FINALLY we're getting a female protagonist. LOTR was never just for the boys!
>>25163675cool!https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xj1U7cwL0X0
>>25163527I don't really care much for Tolkien nor Colbert but I think this raises a genuinely interesting question. Why does a potentially bad adaptation of something cause so much condemnation among fans?It's not just LotR and not just this, but for example let's assume you're really into Tolkien, you've read the entirety of his fiction and also his letters, etc. There is now news of this adaptation, by all accounts it looks like it will be unfaithful to the source material, and probably pretty bad on its own merits as well. But it cannot take away the books you like, or your own take on these books, you are entitled to them as you always have been. So why does it cause outrage?Is it about expectations being let down? E.g. you'd hope to see an adaptation that's in line with your tastes, you hear that there is going to be an adaptation and that's exciting, but then you see that it's most likely going to be bad and that's disappointing?Is it about disrupting social signalling? E.g. if you say "I like Tolkien" and want to meet fellow fans, you will now not be able to filter out the fans of the adaptations that you don't like? Is it about the adaptation/the fact that it's been produced itself signalling to you that "times have moved on" and fewer people now longer share your aesthetic preferences than before? (Being left alone is a fundamental human anxiety.)Is it something else?
>Shadow of the PastEven the title is soulless.
>>25163527https://x.com/TolkienWorldG/status/2036660647140929642in this video Colbert says the movie is going to consist of unfilmed chapters in the Fellowship of the Ring. No mention of any of this 14 year time skip, but maybe it's going to be one of those movies that keeps switching back and forth between past and present.
>muh female protagonistHope it turns out to be a tranny so women are disappointed they wont be able to self-insert hehe
>>25163829it's the title of the 2nd chapter in fellowship of the ring
>>25164013It's a reference.
>why the War of the Ring was almost lost before it even beganWhat kind of premise is that? We KNOW why it was almost lost. It is one of the major themes of the trilogy and the legendarium as a whole.
>>25163890So it's going to be a cash-in about Tom Bombadil and related matters, from the Old Forest to the Barrow-downs. Looks like someone listened to the purist fans who complained about Tom Bombadil not having made it to the big screen.The third movie is probably going to be about the Scouring of the Shire.
>>25163527one thing i remember about colbert is he's a massive lotr fan. like a lore fag level of fandom. so, i guess it's better than someone like alex kurtzman writing this movie. not like i'll watch it either way
>>25164024>It was lost because it was led and fought by white men! I hope Eleanor beats her father to a pulp and as the camera pans away from Sam’s beating, the narrator tells the audience that yes, a fellowship of POC women would’ve achieved the quest in a month with no problems or casualties.
>>25163527i have female protag fatigue
Lord of the Rings is for literal 12 year old boys. I don't know why you all pretend it's somehow sacred.
I thought RANGZ of KANGZ was pretty good thoughbeit, that second season was dopedo /lit/eraties hate it because it's too GoT-coded or something?
>>25164192No, Hobbit is for children, that said being for kids does not automatically mean being bad, just look at MLP
>>25164198It's all for children. Some classmates in 4th grade were reading the non-Hobbit books.
>>25163807The root of it is a war over culture and by extension the social and political structure of society. An aggressive reinterpretation of an element of culture hides within it intentional and unintentional subversive attempts to alter social and political norms (and of course, all cultural creations are themselves intentional and unintentional attempts to alter society). Your post is almost certainly made in bad faith which is why it focuses on a psychoanalytic attempt to project inferiority into the minds of OP and others. Personally I am not a fan of Tolkien, but I see what people like about him.Also don't take my post as>HECKIN' LEFTIST JEWS ARE BEING SUBVERSIVES HECKIN' PUSHING MULTICULTURAL FEMINISM IN...It's more that all people at all times are being subversive, unintentionally or not, including in your attempt to pathologize literary criticism of a certain type, and including my attempt to justify it. Everything is inherently political or nothing is political at all which is why it is such a struggle to neutrally moderate a board like /lit/, because the politics are either present and unseen or present and consciously known.
>>25164215Women's education is lethal to society.
>>25164215I ask because it's not my first time in media-themed communities on the internet, and time and time again I see the same kind of pattern. An adaptation or remake of something is announced. It sucks ass (sometimes in a politically antagonistic way). The fans are sent into a rage that quickly turns into defeatism ("it's over...") - or sometimes skip straight into defeatism. It's not even like they're soldiers in the trenches of the culture war bracing for the next battle and discussing strategies - they're not brigading another fan community or collaborating on their own fanmade adaptation or even making parodies of the new bad one, they're not doing anything constructive, they're just grieving and infecting each other with despair. To me it seems like people are just hurting themselves and each other for no benefit. It doesn't even seem like self harm when people feel like punishing themselves with pain grants them absolution from some perceived sin. I just genuinely don't understand it and I want to understand it. Is that in bad faith? Good faith? You tell me, I don't know.> An aggressive reinterpretation of an element of culture hides within it intentional and unintentional subversive attempts to alter social and political normsOkay, so that seems in line with my last proposed explanation, just worded differently and going from aesthetic to political preferences directly. (I don't mind your wording if you prefer it to my "pathologizing", FWIW.) If that's what it is, fair enough, but I guess then I'd ask - where does this political tension find release?
Cool. I want a job where I can retire with a ton of money, move to a cabin off a lake, and write a book about my favorite fandom whist sipping coffee and taking fishing breaks.
>>25163807It's about cultural preservation. Yes, the original will always be there. But you have to now distinguish between "real" lord of the rings and everything else. It's like if someone in ancient Greece had seized the "rights" to Homer and "finished" the epic cycle only for it to be the worst piece of shit known to man that completely contradicts every thematic and narrative element in the original two epics. This probably happened, it's just they weren't passed down, probably due to the appreciators of Homer jealously guarding his actual works and preserving and passing down the "true" Homeric epics and lashing out against shitty fanfictions that seek to make some quick cash with a recognizable name.Now imagine if the same shitty poet had infinitely more resources to spread his version of Homer and advertise it and get it translated? That's effectively what we have going on here with Hollywood.>inb4 comparing Tolkien to Homer
I wonder how many >Orange man badlines he'll put in.
>>25164288>where does this political tension find release?mountains of bodies and an ocean of blood
>>25163807It's about the fact that you feel immense disgust towards what is essentially raping of art for profit and ideological signalling. The pattern that you see over and over today is a complete lack of respect for the source material, which clashes with the fact that the they choose to adapt the source material in the first place - meaning that they either have ulterior motives or they aren't fit to be making adaptions in the first place. With that being said I turn your question right back at you: why would anyone NOT dislike this type of behaviour? Why would seeing something that you cherish being reduced to slop - and knowing that there is an entire industry dedicated to this sloppification process - NOT elicit strong feelings? I'm not even a Tolkien fan, by the way.
>>25164188>checkedHowever, you could probably just stop consuming visual media. Most of this seems self inflicted anyways. If you don't like mainstream shit, dig. You're not gonna find anything on the surface.
>>25164481>. With that being said I turn your question right back at you: why would anyone NOT dislike this type of behaviour?If you're interested in my perspective, I don't see what they're doing as "reducing" something I cherish. (I wouldn't exactly say cherish, I am much more techno-optimistic and much less of a moral absolutist than Tolkien was, but I'll be the first one to admit that for all my disagreements with him he had talent as a writer and could build an evocative world, and his recent adaptations inherit everything about him I disliked and zero of what I liked). I would have been outraged if e.g. someone tried to ban Tolkien's books as "Chud literature", and make them unavailable to me. That would be destructive. But as long as people are just releasing bullshit for an audience that does not include me - I think it's regular stuff, tastes change with generations. My backlog is very long and even if literally nothing new was up to my tastes, I could still read/watch/play stuff I want for a decade or more and not need to engage with any new releases of any media whatsoever.Besides, I am not Tolkien's estate, the man himself is no one to me, so I don't feel the need to be offended on his behalf (given how much I've laughed at performatively offended leftists in the past, me being offended on behalf of a dead author would have been hypocritical anyway.)
>>25163807When you really like a work of art it becomes important to you. You don't want to see its legacy and impact messed up or shit on. This is a very common sentiment among humans and it's surprising to me you don't understand that.In terms of adaptations in particular, the issue mostly comes down to numbers. Everyone knows what Lord of the Rings is, but the people who have read Fellowship are in a sharp minority, those that read the whole trilogy in the single digits, and those that read The Silmarillion a fraction of a percent.This means that an adaptation often has an enormous impact on how something is perceived and more importantly: its future. This includes its legacy, what it later influences, and what comes next. Thinking more holistically, if you want more art on the same level as the thing you love then you need future artists to be inspired by it. A writer who reads LotR and goes to make their own is very different than a writer who watched the movies and captures that instead.This isn't some hypothetical, it's a real concern that artists grapple with. Whether it's books, paintings, music, film, there's a worry that we're drowning in photocopies of photocopies of photocopies, each iteration losing even more detail and identity.
>>25164288>It's not even like they're soldiers in the trenches of the culture war bracing for the next battle and discussing strategiesEveryone is always an agent of political power. They do not need to be conscious of their attempt to influence society because all actions have some sort of influence, however small. Even "defeatism" is an expression affirming the negative nature of the Other as an existential threat (to something) and thus provokes divestment, rejection, etc. to separate one identity from another. You could think of it as cultural signaling, but this is a very vulgar way to see it.As for how political tension finds release, it is in achieving some kind of success either individually or as a group (i.e., Go Woke Go Broke or cancelling a chud), but ultimately it is literally as this anon says: >>25164394 It is the point at which the "Other" is destroyed in its entirety. In less extreme terms, this could be the cultural elimination of whatever political group is attempting the subversive changes, such that there is no longer a perceived threat. It may seem dramatic, but this existential battle between groups is always happening covertly, unconsciously, overtly, or consciously, so there is nothing trivial, primitive, irrational, or pathological about it, it simply is.
>>25163527>direct fanfic sequel with the main charactersThis one is somehow the worst of them all
>>25163807There is a lot that could be said about this. But really, why do you need a reason to hate something detestable? If something is bad then it is worth saying so and describing why. And the creator should be made to feel bad too, since creating bad art probably qualifies as one of the seven deadly sins, such as pride, sloth, and greed. Pride because they thought so highly of their art to compare to the greats that have come before. Sloth because they weren't willing to put in the effort to make something good. And greed because they were willing to reap the reward of art without putting in the effort to make something good. And pride again because they thought there was any way to create something other than the write, or rather they were not willing to humble themselves for the sake of creation which is the ancient crime of hubris. If I do not make you feel shitty for your hubris so that you correct your behavior, then God will. When God punishes hubris the consequences typically are so great that the whole series of events becomes a story in the literary canon. So it is an act of Christian love for me to give correction to these halfwit artists. Of course, if we are speaking of Hollywood, it's likely most of them are so full of pride that they are beyond the help of Christian love, in which case they can look forward to the excruciation of the Lord's justice.
>>25164907*right not write, really it should be 'right way'
>>25163531Unironically, this game is very interesting in that it combines fire with water, Martin with Tolkien. I don't think anyone has ever dared to do that literary-wise.
>>25164907I'm not a Christian, but if you are, that explains it.
>>25164232>(((Women's))) educationHollywood is owned by Ellison. It is just content from the Zionists (Like so much of publishing)
>>25164907maybe sthop being a chrustcuck?kloser
>>25163807>Is it something else?Yes, it is. When you you see a band of grave robbers exhume a corpse, inflate it with a bellows and make it croak obscenely, all for a few shillings' profit, you're filled with an entirely human disgust which is not connected to any speculation about the state of the tendons and connective tissues.
>>25163807I think it's a general view of the people that art is inseparable from its mediums. People seriously cannot separate a movie from a book.The real reason you should be mad is that movies are an objectively lesser art form, and the "adaptation" is genuinely the worst possible way to experience a work from a different medium because part of the function of adaptations is to dilute the material of the book in order to make it more palatable for a visual medium, at the cost of experiencing a work of higher standing. It's like being able to see the skeleton, but not the cartilage, veins, nerves, muscles of the body. Thus, it wouldn't even matter if this movie that Colbert is working on would be good, great, or so incredible it can stand toe to toe with the movie trilogy,The same applicability goes towards the original trilogy also; it's a massive downgrade from the original book, and is clearly diluted from greater ideas.
>>25163527oh no not my pop culture slop juvenilia
Aragorn son of Arathorn son of Aragog son of Aramog the mogger, son of Arararara the japanese office lady, son of Adidas son of Anthrax the heavy metal band son of Apartheid between elves and men, who was born in the year of the first eon in the second age of the third era in the fourth epoch of the fifth period of the final chronologies of the hobbits, rose from his seat. "We must not tarry here any longer" He said.
grim
Who owns the copyright?
Feels so good watching Tolkien’s legacy suffer his eternal karma for that letter bros
>>25166324Eh, I don't think it's apples to oranges and I don't think we need to do any status dick measuring over this. Low standing, high standing and all this bullshit is for insecure people.Books are limited in their ability to provide audiovisual information. Movies are limited in their ability to communicate abstract concepts. Limited doesn't mean unable - you could have an audiobook with a stacked cast, you can have a book richly illustrated to the point it's almost a comic, you could have a lot of background narration and on-screen text in a movie - but in most cases it's an uphill battle and authors do not fight it.When you adapt a book to screen, you lose the background narration and the ability to legibly address intangible concepts, but you gain the ability to visualize and voice it, presumably in a more interesting and evocative ways than the reader could have done in their imagination. There are stories that benefit from one approach or the other. E.g. hacking movies suck (or overblow cybersecurity's IRL consequences to comedic proportions where someone can drop planes out of the sky after spending 5 minutes furiously typing) because you can't easily visually explain something like a compromised CI/CD pipeline. But also if you tried to novelize e.g. a John Wick movie it would suck because its whole artistic value is in immaculately choreographed and acted and scored violence, it's practically a ballet in that sense. A main battle tank and an F1 car are both ground vehicles, but they're obviously engineered to different requirements. You or I can be into tanks and not into racing, but that does not make an F1 car "objectively lesser" to a tank on a fundamental level (or the other way around). If you're planning to fight a battle, it is, if you're planning to race - it's not.When it comes to LotR I think it could actually go either way. You could do a lot of interesting things that play to the strengths of the literary medium with LotR and Tolkien has done that. You could lose some of them but compensate with really pretty costumes, sets, good acting, music and combat choreography if you make a movie or a TV show out of it. To be clear, I still absolutely expect the movie to suck. I don't expect them to have the balls to do anything interesting with it, nor play to the strength of their movie well, but it won't be because movies are somehow fundamentally inferior.
>>25163527It's progressive because he's a troll and they used to depict them and dumb savages in movies. stunning and brave.
>>25163527Why him?
>>25163527It will be a story about a very trump looking bad guy who is killed by tranny biracial hobbits.
we will say we hate it and they will say we don't and we actually love it.
>>25163807>Why does a potentially bad adaptation of something cause so much condemnationBig Studios rehashing bullshit with reboots and endless sequel cash grabs is the rule, even more today catering to Boomers still. >Matrix>Star Wars Prequels>LOTRThere's nothing of that scale outside of Avatar (Way of Self-Parody), but at least Cameron tried. Mass entertainment kulchur is decades stagnant, and the putrefication is starting to bore its way into even the most inured retards its built for now.>>25163890>B Roll: The MovieThis is why you can't give up physical media. Just watch the Special Features and the Extended LOTRs. If they wanted to attempt something worth watching and revisiting the world, they'd have taken a page from GOT's trash final seasons and do The New Shadow.
>>25163807It's autism. It's all about autism. Nothing impede you to just ignore it and go on about your day, because no matter how bad things get, you still have your favorite works for you to enjoy and it doesn't change anything. If "public view" like "fandoms", hollywood, some random reddit posts, or even some offshot anon replying it's all it takes to get you off from the things you supossedly enjoy, which experiences given are entirely individual ones, then you never liked the source material in the first place. Also, 4chan would go radio silence overnight if they actually ignored trash from entertaiment and just focused on their interests. Discussing the merit of things you personally are fond of doesn't get as many (You)s as complains, impotent seething and outrage engangement that most of the internet users nowadays loves so much. These things keep being made because all it takes it's your attention to keep seeing them pop up.
