Thread: LOTRO succeeded in what Peter Jackson's movies have failed

Originally Posted by Al.

Ok defending your view on how movies were really a good interpretation of Tolkien, GO AHEAD and defend your point, saying something like this has little value to me for example:

"The Movies were fine, in fact they change the lore less than LOTRO...."

Why?
How do movies better interpret tolkien, how is it a good interpretation?

Are you seriously trying to contend that the game makes less extensive changes than the movies? The very nature of this game has led to massive changes. Hobbits all over the place, powerful magic being used routinely all over the place, distortion of the plot to shoehorn in the player-characters, NPCs routinely being shown to be weak or ineffectual no matter how capable they are in the books, how the game makes your character 'the' hero when the original's focus is general rather than specific... and that's just a sample.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

Are you seriously trying to contend that the game makes less extensive changes than the movies? The very nature of this game has led to massive changes. Hobbits all over the place, powerful magic being used routinely all over the place, distortion of the plot to shoehorn in the player-characters, NPCs routinely being shown to be weak or ineffectual no matter how capable they are in the books, how the game makes your character 'the' hero when the original's focus is general rather than specific... and that's just a sample.

Hey there Rad, Im enjoying the debate here too. Yep I did meant it that LOTRO did less drastic changes or at least less "impacting" changes than the Movies did.

I do think Hobbits running around doing all sorts of adventurous deeds and the like, is a change necessary for LOTRO to even be playable I think, powerful magic too, character story intervention etc. But if you consider carefully all these changes the lore of Tokien barely changed, you can still read the book and play LOTRO and find it more alike than more different, that is what I meant. (LOTRO is a very good interpretation, because does sub-creation too expands the lore)

For example even NPC's in LOTRO do Tolkien tribute in the sense they act like characters of the book did, Aragorn is what you expect him to be really he is "Great Captain of Dunedain" , but still guided by lore, also been lore-centric without been "too much lore less fun", LOTRO is still a very fun game to play.

My whole argument summed up meant that LOTRO is better in interpretation. but fails as adaptation, movies are by far the best adaptation because more people watch movies than the ones that play games I think. That is why LOTRO does succeeded in what the movie fails.

IF somehow PJ had done a better job, maybe in a parallel universe the movies are in FACT better interpretation and adaptation than LOTRO, but that is not the case in our reality.

Originally Posted by Hurin

Very well, very few, or only one person has claimed their opinion to be "fact."


The problem with that parsing of exact words is that while Gwanwyn took issue with people stating their opinions as facts, and you demonstrated that one person on a public internet forum has done so, Gwanwyn then went on to address the points I had made rather than the perpetrator you indicate. So, it does not seem Gwanwyn took issue with the post you indicate, but rather, my posts and that of others which state an opinion which we go to pains to buttress with examples, evidence and/or "facts."

--H

I apparently demonstrated that at least one poster has claimed ‘facts’ in this thread alone; not on an entire public internet forum. If you have read other threads, or followed the “Lothlorien; Now Unguarded” thread, I think you will see many examples of argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Unfortunately, Gwan’s post was a stand alone; s/he did not name names or quote anyone. It may seem like s/he was singling you out, but s/he may not have been. S/he may have just been stating some of his/her opinions and not giving the whole list. I am not saying that you are wrong; just that the post was written in such a way as to leave doubt.

I have to read the OP name, thought you was the troll whom ask for best solo fighting class and then state don't give your opinions lol
I actually enjoy the movie o.o

Originally Posted by RKL

[COLOR="#DAA520"]I apparently demonstrated that at least one poster has claimed ‘facts’ in this thread alone; not on an entire public internet forum. If you have read other threads, or followed the “Lothlorien; Now Unguarded” thread, I think you will see many examples of argumentum ad ignorantiam.

I said "one person on an internet forum". . . which you somehow seem to have taken issue with and parsed strangely.

I meant only:

1. You identified him.
2. He posted on an internet forum.

My point was that such behavior is not exactly rare on the internet. Yet only one example in this thread could be identified. Which is actually quite good as internet discussions go. Yet Gwanwyn made it seem as though this thread was rife with it.

I am not saying that you are wrong; just that the post was written in such a way as to leave doubt.

Not much. She mentions both Elijah Wood's age as well as Aragorn being "emo". . . using terms and phrases I had used myself while giving just those examples. Though note, rather than making a substantive counter-argument, there is merely a "nuh-uh!" and then ad hominem shenanigans.

But for the heck of it, I'm going to play devil's advocate even for the person whom you single out.

He merely makes the argument that if the debate is over which property better honors the book, then such a thing is quantifiable and knowable. Clearly, they can't have both honored it exactly equally. One must have done so more than the other. The problem is that what seems egregious on one person's part is quite forgivable for another. Which is when we enter into opinions and personal taste.

Which is why I stated that both deviate from lore. However, the game tends to deviate by adding things to the world and its history and tries to do so where possible outside of the scope covered by the books. Whereas, the movies alter characters. Quite fundamentally, in some cases. People tend to have more of a problem with the latter rather than the former. Especially given that the game is just that, a game. And a movie isn't intended to give you hundreds and thousands of hours of enjoyment.

One more example of the movies fundamentally altering a character? How about more Aragorn?

Note how the movies portray Elrond as derisive and dismissive of Aragorn. He treats Aragorn with scorn. And talks of Aragorn's current identity as a Ranger with derision. Even Gandalf, while defending Aragorn against Elrond's clumny can only speak of Aragorn having potential to be great.

Compare that to the books: Where Aragorn, already far older than he appears, has already seen glory in war as the greatest captain of Gondor and Rohan seen in ages. He is also declared to be the "greatest huntsman of this age" by Gandalf and has carried out great deeds in service of the Wise. Indeed, Elrond raised him as his own son and loved him dearly even after Arwen came between them.

All those changes, of course, are made so we can cheer all the more when our ne'er-do-well hero actually stops being a screw-up Ranger and does something right for a change.

Edit: "ages" above not meant literally as one of Middle-Earth's "Four Ages."

Originally Posted by Al.

Hey there Rad, Im enjoying the debate here too. Yep I did meant it that LOTRO did less drastic changes or at least less "impacting" changes than the Movies did.

I do think Hobbits running around doing all sorts of adventurous deeds and the like, is a change necessary for LOTRO to even be playable I think, powerful magic too, character story intervention etc. But if you consider carefully all these changes the lore of Tokien barely changed, you can still read the book and play LOTRO and find it more alike than more different, that is what I meant. (LOTRO is a very good interpretation, because does sub-creation too expands the lore)

If we're to fairly compare game and movies, then you have to allow for necessary changes in the movies, too. As the movies were naturally focused on the core plot, the changes in the movies are all to that so they are more immediately obtrusive but that doesn't mean they're bigger changes or somehow worse. LOTRO has the luxury of taking the focus elsewhere and trying to fit its changes mostly around the edges of the plot or elsewhere entirely, but that doesn't make them inconsequential. Having the Shire full of assorted nastiness that was never there is not a small change. Neither is creating whole towns that couldn't have been there (Trestlebridge), bringing Angmar back from the grave, having the Dwarves try to reclaim Moria practically the second the Balrog falls, having the Elves of Lorien attack Dol Guldur well before Sauron's fall, or having the Grey Company mucking about on their way south and losing many of their number.

Playable hobbits aren't needed to make a game playable and neither is powerful magic. They're needed to make it marketable to a mass audience. Viewed purely as an interpretation, LOTRO is a horror because such market-driven changes have ridden rough-shod over the books. By contrast, the movies are actually very restrained compared to typical fantasy fare. For example, the use of powerful magic is minimal; there's actually less than in the books. There is also no significant distortion of the role hobbits play in the War of the Ring.

For example even NPC's in LOTRO do Tolkien tribute in the sense they act like characters of the book did, Aragorn is what you expect him to be really he is "Great Captain of Dunedain" , but still guided by lore, also been lore-centric without been "too much lore less fun", LOTRO is still a very fun game to play.

Aragorn might be, but what about the hapless Rangers?

My whole argument summed up meant that LOTRO is better in interpretation. but fails as adaptation, movies are by far the best adaptation because more people watch movies than the ones that play games I think. That is why LOTRO does succeeded in what the movie fails.

I don't agree with your distinction between adaptation and interpretation. The adaptation is what you come up with by re-interpreting the original for a different medium; the two are firmly linked as process and product. LOTRO is essentially a conventional mass-market 'theme park' MMO with an LOTR 'skin' on it, and that skin is very thin in places. How, for example, could you interpret the books so as to allow hobbits to go toe-to-toe with huge monsters, even a Balrog? Allowing hobbits to be a 'heavy' melee class was a terrible idea. Such 'features' greatly undermine any claim you might make that LOTRO is a better interpretation.

Originally Posted by Hurin

I said "one person on an internet forum". . . which you somehow seem to have taken issue with and parsed strangely.

I meant only:

1. You identified him.
2. He posted on an internet forum.

My point was that such behavior is not exactly rare on the internet. Yet only one example in this thread could be identified. Which is actually quite good as internet discussions go. Yet Gwanwyn made it seem as though this thread was rife with it.


Not much. She mentions both Elijah Wood's age as well as Aragorn being "emo". . . using terms and phrases I had used myself while giving just those examples. Though note, rather than making a substantive counter-argument, there is merely a "nuh-uh!" and then ad hominem shenanigans.

But for the heck of it, I'm going to play devil's advocate even for the person whom you single out.

He merely makes the argument that if the debate is over which property better honors the book, then such a thing is quantifiable and knowable. Clearly, they can't have both honored it exactly equally. One must have done so more than the other. The problem is that what seems egregious on one person's part is quite forgivable for another. Which is when we enter into opinions and personal taste.

Which is why I stated that both deviate from lore. However, the game tends to deviate by adding things to the world and its history and tries to do so where possible outside of the scope covered by the books. Whereas, the movies alter characters. Quite fundamentally, in some cases. People tend to have more of a problem with the latter rather than the former. Especially given that the game is just that, a game. And a movie isn't intended to give you hundreds and thousands of hours of enjoyment.

One more example of the movies fundamentally altering a character? How about more Aragorn?

Note how the movies portray Elrond as derisive and dismissive of Aragorn. He treats Aragorn with scorn. And talks of Aragorn's current identity as a Ranger with derision. Even Gandalf, while defending Aragorn against Elrond's clumny can only speak of Aragorn having potential to be great.

Compare that to the books: Where Aragorn, already far older than he appears, has already seen glory in war as the greatest captain of Gondor and Rohan seen in ages. He is also declared to be the "greatest huntsman of this age" by Gandalf and has carried out great deeds in service of the Wise. Indeed, Elrond raised him as his own son and loved him dearly even after Arwen came between them.

All those changes, of course, are made so we can cheer all the more when our ne'er-do-well hero actually stops being a screw-up Ranger and does something right for a change.

Edit: "ages" above not meant literally as one of Middle-Earth's "Four Ages."

I agree with you to a large degree. I enjoyed the movies. I bought the 3 dvds as they came out. I also bought the trilogy extended edition when it came out.

But there are so many parts of the movie that made me cringe. Things you (and others) mention here in this thread and more besides. I see no reason to have made many of the changes that were made.

Am I glad the movies were made? Yes! Do I wish it followed the books more closely? Yes! Do I think it follows the lore more closely than the game. No, I do not think that, nor do I think the reverse is true.

Personally speaking, it is not an interesting enough question to pursue. It is interesting however to observe how others go about debating it. Anyway, these are some of my opinions on the subject/s.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

If we're to fairly compare game and movies, then you have to allow for necessary changes in the movies, too.

That's just it though. Most of the grousing about the movie revolves around what was actually "necessary."

For example, few people really took issue with Liv Tyler's expanded role. Most accepted that they needed more female faces in the movie.

But there is no need to make Denethor an irredeemable, evil fool with a side-order of incompetence. Just as there was no need to make Theoden wander off into pacifistic sophistry just days before he leads a magnificent charge with the battle-cry of "DEATH! DEATH! DEATH!" And, of course, I've already covered Aragorn ad nauseum. The worst type of "necessary" though, was the totally unnecessary Army of the Green Dead at Minas Tirith. It was neither necessary, economical, nor appealing to the audience. I don't know anyone who truly likes that change. . . yet oddly many will still defend it.

When asked why those things were done, we're told they were "necessary". . . but only in the mind of the screenwriter with a particular vision of how to get the story onto the screen economically.

That's not exactly the same type of "necessary" as giving people the ability to play Hobbits in a game while not walling them off in the Shire.

Having said that, Hobbit Guardians are an abomination.

Adaptation arguments never tend to end well. Case in point.