Damage to the source material by an adaptation

Y

Yard Sard

Member
Listening to Episode 16 right now (the one with John Howe), but Corey has brought it up a number of times: the idea that readers/viewers with a critical mind ought to be able to distance themselves emotionally from the idea of a potentially "bad" adaptation coming along and "ruining" the source material that you love. The thesis being that the original will still always be there; it isn't damaged by a bad adaptation. There is no need to get all defensive or protective as though your own received interpretation of even the text is the only valid one anyway.

I do have a first-hand example of what I think the fear is though: it's that other people will see the bad adaptation, and then tar you unfairly with that adaptation knowing that you like the source material. "Oh, you like [thing that was recently made into a bad movie]? Haha, what bad taste you have!" And then you have to explain and defend yourself on the basis that it isn't the movie you like, it's the thing the movie was made from, and the movie was bad, and yadda yadda yadda.

I have someone in my life who loves to bring up THE EAGLES every single weekend, every chance he gets, berating me that it's a stupid plot hole and a deux ex machina and a dumb trope and it's terrible writing. And I've written essays in defense of the rescue by the eagles in many places and many forums throughout my life, most recently couched in the thematic framing of the story as a redemption and absolution arc, one where Frodo was not strong enough in his own right to succeed, one where indeed he and Sam had both given themselves up for lost, but his mercy in sparing Gollum had allowed Providence to give them a hand up and a balm for the soul, a way for the denouement to play out with them alive so it's not a downer. Whether they live or die is hardly even material to the story being told.

But because this person has (apparently) only ever seen the movies, which I feel confident in guessing because if he'd read the books with any kind of open mind he wouldn't be making these accusations, as though it's a dumb action-adventure tale where the biggest take-home is how our heroes will get out of this scrape or that scrape—I have to defend my basic tastes against the accusations being leveled on the basis of a completely different work than the thing I actually am primarily interested in. And there's no real way to mount that defense when the other person is arguing in bad faith to begin with, or just trying to get under your skin so he can laugh at you for being "defensive".

So my point is that no, the source material isn't "damaged" by a bad adaptation—but by association with it, fans find themselves thrust into the sometimes unwelcome position of having to defend the bad adaptation, or to explain away the differences between the adaptation and the source, which is harder.
 
It’s easy: don’t defend your taste. Like what you like. I get the whole eagles thing and for a while it bothered me but not it’s just…it’s dull and wrote and it’s joke that’s far from original. So it’s not even very funny or interesting. Which is fine. It’s just…meh. I like what I like. Others don’t. That’s okay. Don’t feel you need to justify your tastes. There’s no such thing as bad art and there should be no ‘guilty pleasures’. Just take joy and let others scoff if they will. They’ll have their own thing they love that others deride. And that’s cool too.

And never explain why the source material is better. People making jokes probably do not care. They’re doing it for their own sake, not yours.
 
Right. Everyone can like what they like, and you'll always have the original no matter how bad an adaptation is. But sometimes a bad adaptation can make it less fun to talk about the thing you love online. Or at parties. Or with friends. Especially if you know the conversation will get derailed to talk about the adaptation or the other version or whatever.

In general, though, I find that fandoms tend to pretend that the bad version never happened, and they continue to just focus on what they liked. So, sure, the two Matrix movie sequels were hated, while the original was loved. Not surprisingly, the later reboot focused heavily on the storyline and aesthetic of the original.

Too bad they never made a live action version of Avatar: The Last Airbender, am I right? Lots of people who love that fandom continue to enjoy the cartoon and celebrate it, with lots of memes online...but hardly any more than an allusion is ever made to the existence of the live action film. The fandom rejected it, and stuck with what they liked.

So, basically, you have to navigate others' reactions to adaptations, whether you love it and everyone else hated it, or if you hated it, and everyone else insists on talking about that rather than the original that you love.

PS - The joke/complaint about "Why didn't the Eagles just fly them to Mount Doom?" pre-existed Jackson's films.
 
MithLuin said:
Right. Everyone can like what they like, and you'll always have the original no matter how bad an adaptation is. But sometimes a bad adaptation can make it less fun to talk about the thing you love online. Or at parties. Or with friends. Especially if you know the conversation will get derailed to talk about the adaptation or the other version or whatever.
Click to expand...


It is not only about the reactions of others.
Many in Star Wars fandom disconnected from the original Star Wars too after the dissapoinment with its later installments "soured" and "tainted" and "clouded" the "purity" of their childhood wonder and pure enchantement with it.
Also after RoP I hear many less than thrilled with the propect and possibility of more Tolkien works based movies that has been hinted at lately. You get reactions like "while can you let a great old franchise just die in dignity"? Many people became so much afraid of seeing their beloved worlds deconstructed one after another to the extent that they get frustrated, tired and disillusioned at the very idea to see them adapted again.
 
Last edited:
I am not sure if i should call it damage...

Back in the days Middle-earth used to look different. I saw it through the eyes of illustrators, rpg games and animated films... so i knew there were many contradicting versions of elves or Dunedain...


Then it all became associated with a specific aesthetic pushed by the jackson movies. By now rings of power doesn't seem to have had a huge impact... people just aren't that hyped about the fandom any more.

In old rpg days we used to invent entire lands and places and characters set somewhere in Tolkiens world... that type of creativity i miss a lot.despite of how bad much fanfic used to be...
 
Last edited:
The PJ films drew their Middle-earth aesthetic from Alan Lee and John Howe‘s art work. Indeed much of these films seemed to me to be a re-enactment of illustrations that had been published much earlier (eg. Alan Lee’s illustrations for the 1992 centennial edition to LotR). RoP has deliberately chosen to align with this art (especially John Howe) and I can see the logic. It does have the result of perhaps marginalising the work of other long-standing Tolkien artists. I write this looking at the brilliant depiction of Fingon shooting arrows at baby Glaurung by Jenny Dolfen (March picture in this year’s Tolkien Calendar).

And I also spent much of my youth playing RPG, some situated in Middle-earth. I don’t see the proliferation of screen adaptations as replacing this. This is one of the reasons I love being part of the Silmarillion Film Project. That project is continuing to go its own merry way without reference to screen adaptations that actually hit the screens.
 
Last edited:
Yes, Peter Jackson hired Alan Lee and John Howe, and they brought their body of work with them to the project. Rings of Power hired John Howe. That does help meet people's expectations of what Middle-earth 'should' look like, as they've seen the art before. I would not have been as eager to see, say, the Brothers Hildebrandt version of Middle-earth depicted on film.

It's also true that fans can burn out and lose interest eventually. Being enthusiastic about something indefinitely can get old to many people. Some people lose interest once there is no new material to anticipate - the idea of being a fan of an old/completed property does not hold their interest. Other people cycle between obsessions, so they are really, really into something for awhile...and then shift their attention elsewhere. Maybe they come back to the old interest, maybe they don't. Maybe they felt betrayed by the ending, and no longer want to invest the mental space.

I find it difficult to write for more than one fandom at a time. My interest will be fairly exclusively one thing at a time. That can be the same thing for years, but when I put it down and move on, there is a good chance I wouldn't return to finish any of my in-progress works. Part of that is because I like to know all the details about the world, so I have to have everything fairly fresh in my mind if I am going to write my own story in that setting. And another reason is that different interests correspond with different times in my life. I'm not the same person I was 20 years ago, and so.....

I am lucky that Tolkien's writings have a 'first love' status for me that never gets old. So I can pick up new interests, but that one is always there. Most of my other fandom interests wax and wane, which I am fine with.
 
As far as Tolkien artists go...I imagine many people have varying aesthetics, and so certain artists will leave one person cold, while another artist will really capture a scene.

Naturally, I would like to think that my favorite artists are the ones who captured the text most accurately, but that isn't always the case. Sometimes it's simply beautiful, while other times there's a dynamic illustration quality to the work that really captures the characters or the scenes...but may suffer from some inaccuracies that don't completely mar the work for me. Other times there may be nothing technically wrong with it, but I dismiss the work wholesale as not representative of Tolkien's world.

There were a lot of terrible covers of Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit over the years. Alan Lee and John Howe and Ted Nasmith managed to create illustrations of the books that were well-loved by readers, so they stood apart. Tolkien's own art gives an indication of how he saw his world, and he did indicate that he liked Pauline Baynes' illustrations. So artists now have some idea of what sort of expectations they are up against. Jenny Dolfen very deliberately did not base her Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones work on the actors - she read those as books first and has her own ideas of what the characters look like. But she will happily do Star Wars illustrations based on actors, because...Star Wars was primarily film to her. Which is perfectly fair, though it doesn't always match fan expectations. ....and doesn't always get her a commission for merchandise.

So, yes, we may have a narrower view of what Middle-earth looks like now than we did in the 1970's, despite there being more artists contributing their work. But....perhaps reaching a fan consensus on some things isn't particularly bad. I mean, as long as the rejection is just 'I don't care for it' and not 'you can't do that.'
 
Concerning art....

As an example, if you were to ask me if I thought male elves should have short or long hair, I would most likely say, "long." And yet, if you were also to ask me to name my favorite Silmarillion artists, it turns out that some of them depict certain male elves with shorter hair. And some who give their male elves very long hair, to the point that I would confidently say that it is 'too long'. Based on, what, exactly? Obviously, there's a lot of personal preference at work there. I'm allowed to like what I like, but that doesn't mean that depictions I like are necessarily better or more accurate or more true to Tolkien's world.

Some Examples:

Since we started with Jenny Dolfen, she quite consistently gives Fëanor short hair, and Maedhros has short hair in all of her Beleriand artwork (she tends to give him long hair in her Valinorean pieces).

Here's a portrait she did of Fëanor:
feanor-framed2.jpg


And "The Dispossessed" from 2004 shows the Sons of Fëanor - where only Maglor and (I think) Caranthir have longer hair.
View attachment 4723


Anke Eissman is another German artist. She did a series illustrating the tale of Beren and Lúthien back in 2000-2001. Her Finrod has long hair, (as do her Lúthien and Melian). But her Thingol and her Beleg do not. (from right to left, this is Huan, Beleg, Thingol, Beren, {other elf})
1677967793039.png
I love her costuming details, and her forest scenery tends to be stunning.


The artist with the, 'oh wait, that's a bit too long' hairstyles is Kasiopeia / Catherine Karina Chmiel / Katarzyna Karina Chmiel-Gugulska
I love her sense of illustration and movement. She does gorgeous horses, and you always know how people feel in her scenes. Idril is seriously creeped out by her Maeglin, for instance!

Here, Maedhros needs to chill, but also probably could use a bit of a trim...
1677968973148.png
www.theonering.com

And Maglor took Pity on Them - Catherine Karina Chmiel

www.theonering.com www.theonering.com

And her Caranthir has hair that is probably as long as Haleth's. This is fine to me, but I could see how some might see this as...too much.
1677969229419.png

Category:Images by Catherine Karina Chmiel

This category lists all images by Catherine Karina Chmiel....
tolkiengateway.net tolkiengateway.net

To be fair....look how long Arwen's hair is!
1677970267578.png

But if you asked me "what do elves look like?" and I only go to pick one artist, I would choose Ivanneth and show you the following pictures:

Finrod:
1677970613837.png

Fingon:
1677970636091.png

Nerdanel:
1677970664027.png

Fëanor
1677971253643.png

Cousins: Maedhros & Fingon

1677970706618.png

These are some interesting faces, and manage to look young with old eyes quite well.
 
Very nice pastiche Marie. I also like Eismann and Ivanneth‘s depiction of Elves - but for me, I prefer the hair not too long. Finrod here looks scarily like Will Fletcher!
 
MithLuin said:
Concerning art....

As an example, if you were to ask me if I thought male elves should have short or long hair, I would most likely say, "long."
Click to expand...

As this is what Tolkien stated about the Noldor and the whole of the Teleri.
About the Vanyar and the Avari there is no clear statement but about all the Eldar that we meet in Middle-Earth we know that their default hair-lenght is "long".
Elrond is Halfelven so technically he is neither Noldo nor a Teler/Sinda - as such one could play with his hair-lenght - at least before his marriage to Celebrian - afterwards he should follow elvish standards of beauty to look attractive to her.

Jenny Dolfen's Maedhros has had his hair shorn by the orcs at his capture and his short hair - like his missing hand - are symbols of his "marring". So probably Feanor too, who is so beyond pleasing anyone that he does no konger care to look attractive to anybody, can be shown with short hair to symbolize his own marring by Melkor's influence. As such the depictions make some sense in-world.

That is the main pointy imho - if one just depicts a "medieval style scene" inspired by Tolkien then elvish hair-lenght is just a style question. If one tells a Tolkien story one should follow elvish culture as he described it and then shorter hair for elves needs some additional reasons which warrant the exception from the general standard.
 
Last edited:
Naturally, she painted that after the description of Fingon as having dark hair with braids woven with gold was published. So, yes, she relied heavily on Tolkien's description of what he looked like, including the cloven head for the death wound in the battle. She had her husband pose to get the perspective. Very beautiful portrayal of a violent death!

Many recent artists use that description of Fingon's hair (black hair, braids, woven with gold) to portray him with African-inspired hairstyles and coloration. Searching tumblr for "Fingon" will pull up multiple examples of this, but here are two artists:


Fingon and Turgon on the Helcaraxë
717da2c9c5564bba843de8611ad6a95cffc4fb9c.jpg


Fingon and Gil-galad

06ebd7e673ae2929820a74a11d9d5529d7d9dea8.jpg


Fingon, Maedhros, and Finrod (by the same artist)
a4b0fbe1abcb129a60a598ab2cdbc4f6962fbb8b.jpg











Tolkien's own illustration of Beleg shows him with long hair, but just past shoulder length:

1678049499988.png

Also, that's a tree root he's climbing over, so I'm not certain if those are very large trees, or if the elves are meant to be a bit...diminuitive...here. The mushrooms in the picture are about knee-high to the elf.

1678049769885.png

Pauline Baynes very cleverly used hoods and had the characters of the Fellowship facing away from the viewer, to preserve the ambiguity of the physical descriptions:

1678050356858.png

How long is Legolas' hair? What color is it? Nobody knows! Boromir's hair is, of course, "shorn about the shoulders" to match his description in the book at his introduction.

These elves may have long hair, but I would need to see a better quality version of this image to really figure out what is going on there. The dark-haired elf on the left certainly has hair past the shoulder, but may have hair to the waist...though that could easily be some other item on his back besides the cloak.
1678050612842.png

The artist of the following piece explicitly stated that they don't like short-haired elves, but thought it appropriate for this particular image: the "Doom of the Noldor" as a three-act ballet! The artist thought these hair styles worked better with the dancer silhouettes.

558e9588e11ad171dd6469e51d760894d127eb3d.pnj


Act I: (from top to bottom) Feänor and the silmarils, Mandos, Nerdanel, the Kinslaying at Alqualondë
Act II: (from top to bottom, left to right) Fingon and Maedhros, Turgon and Elenwe, Idril and Maeglin, Galadriel
Act III: (from top to bottom) Fingolfin facing Morgoth, surely that is a Silmaril that shines now in the West?, Maedhros and Maglor
 
Last edited:
I do not understand how Fingon could be this Haradian-looking when his parentage is Fingolfin and Anairë? What is the in-ME explaination behind it?
 
Last edited:
I like the hair but not the aesthetics, too big ears abd too much manga influence for my personal taste. I do appreciate the research Macbride and Danforth put into their art, the reasearch.They definitely looked up JRRT s descriptions of the crown of Gondor, winged helmets and the numenorean foam crested Karma helmet if the venturers.LSO macbride was illustrator for military history books and drew the mostbrealistic and believable armour i kniw from Tolkien illustrations...
 
Haerangil said:
Freedom of Art it is then. Like black Jesus.
Click to expand...

Of course you can even paint the House of Finwe as various kinds of beetles if you want. But this, while interesting if done with some thought behind it, would not be telling a Tolkien story. But I do oposse "black" as a concept in-ME. As I do oposse "white" therein. Those are not ME terms for the shades of complexion (the "white" in the Song of Nimrodel "Her hair was long, her limbs were white" seems a poetic description and not a common term, - she herself was not "white", just "her limbs were white"). "Swarthy" and "fair skinned" are the terms in-ME and they have completely different connotations.

That not that I oppose swarthy elves outside of Tolkien. Actually I am conviced by recent scientifical discoveries that the ancient populations which inspired the elves of legends were indeed quite dark-complexioned. Depigmentation of European populations is a relatively recent thing (pre)-historically speaking: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3525146/. But according to modern research the features of those ancient population were more akin to East-Asians and not to subsaharan Africans.

But Tolkien did not know any of this, as this research simply postdates him. So in his world the elves are pale - as crepuscular and night-active creatures would be expected to be. The ability to be "swarthy" is a characteristic of humans. If one changes that one changes the Tolkien story. Which is fine as long as one does not pretend to tell a Tolkien story but just a Tolkien-inspired one.

And I happen to be extremely opposed to humanizing Tolkien's elves too much - it renders them pointless imho - they are an echo of strange and different predecessors and cultural ancestors - akin to vague fuzzy memories and spectres of ancient past long forgotten. It fits for them to be ghostly pale and almost "transluscent" in-story. This is the function that they simply play therein.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top