Is The Lord of the Rings still relevant?

[piinyouri]

I think just the fact that it's still the basis or vague basis for so very many different settings shows how relevant it must still be.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Ironically, the old D&D-style Warhammer is what I miss. The "grimdark" is just getting absurd.

I struck me worst reading the beastman book. My first love is elves, but my first army was Beasts of Chaos which I got into without really having a load of background in the game. I set up an army concept that was to be somewhat visually stylized from Greek myths, essentially it was a warband full of men who abandon their lives in the Old World to do whatever they wish, fall under the gaze of Slaanesh and become corrupted into beasts. The rank and file infantry were all mutated from hooved prey species, while the leadership were mostly female and mostly to have been mutated from predator species like wolves, the idea being this army is particularly terrifying to the Old World dwellers because the females are on top and the males are content to spend their days idly drinking wine until they need to plunder again, but there was to also be an elder Cthonic deity angle. I'm not going to pretend it was the best army concept, but it had an internal logic and even a goddamned economy to the idea.

Then the latest edition of Beast Men came out, and the book was all about how the Beastmen are evil because they HATE humanity. You know, even more than all the other armies out there that HATE humanity. This sit around and HATE you to DEATH! GROWR, aren't they scary? It was just so stupid it ended up killing my drive to finish. But if it hadn't, you know, been so disappointing as to make me give up on the whole product line, it would have been a smart economic move- the new rules required me to re-base all my existing units and buy a whole bunch more boxes just to have legal units.

Not to mention the Jabberslythe, or whatever. Every army has to have a big tanky thing. Not like in the old days where maybe you could have a Steam Tank or Doomwheel, with the odd dragon or giant thrown in. Every army has to have a big OtT flying chariot with deathrays as standard. Brettonian knights on pegasi are normal, so are empire knights on demigryphs or whatever. Everything is glowing or on fire or both.

Bretonian castles are I believe based on abandoned Elven fortresses, and the Elves were the ones who taught humanity magic, unless it's Chaos/necromancy.

Teclis taught humans magic relatively recently, 200 years ago or so. For 2,300 years, the Empire did not have magic (legally).

As for Bretonnian castles, possibly they built on the ruins centuries after the elves left, but that's about it...though the wood elves were/are manipulating them for their own ends.

 

[Esotera]

It's had a massive influence on the fantasy genre and the Hobbit movie is still pretty good. Although I would say its impact is decreasing, especially since Game of Thrones became popular.

I wish you weren't so right about that last part,

Spoiler: this is what we have to look forward to in the coming decades

Don't get me wrong, I love the world that George is building, but the stories would lose nothing of value if he replaced the extended food descriptions with "and they ate food", and the sex scenes with "and they totally did it". Of course, then the series actually WOULD fit in three books like he originally intended...

Not to mention the ridiculous amount of characters and the steadily increasing presence of magic throughout the books. While Game of Thrones is unique because of its realism and unprecedented character bloat, I hope that it only influences fantasy so that it moves towards more ambiguous morality. It's impossible to figure out what's going on most of the time.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Actually...one wonders what fantasy would be like were it not for Tolkien.

No elves and dwarfs as most think of them...he didn't invent them, but he cemented them into their current forms and popular consciousness, which is something of a shame.

 

[Silvanus]

Not to mention the ridiculous amount of characters and the steadily increasing presence of magic throughout the books. While Game of Thrones is unique because of its realism and unprecedented character bloat, I hope that it only influences fantasy so that it moves towards more ambiguous morality. It's impossible to figure out what's going on most of the time.

Another big influence I would want fantasy writers to take away is the willingness to gut-punch the audience quite so severely (as in A Storm Of Swords), and change what line the story is following.

In The Lord Of The Rings, the protagonists may go through hell, but almost all of them come out of the other side of it. The only meaningful and lasting death of a protagonist for the most part is Boromir. There's nothing wrong with this at all, but it follows the usual route of Mission -> Setback(s) -> Eventual Victory. ASOIAF does not:

Spoiler: Spoilers for 'Game of Thrones' and 'Storm of Swords' (including stuff that hasn't yet been in the show)

The "mission", as understood by Ned Stark and later Robb, has been failed, and the story is now on a different course. It is an incredibly unpredictable series, which is refreshing, and to its benefit. Even the basis for the conflict itself is not as it seems.

CAPTCHA: 'Magical Realism'. Hrmm, similar, but not quite, Captcha.

 

[Shymer]

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?

How many other romance novels from the 1920s have you read or seen a film adaptation of? Are you aware of the influences that Tolkien had when writing LoTR, The Silmarillion, The Hobbit? Have you read the books - or just seen the "old" films?

I am not sure which particular features of Middle Earth you refer to as "fantasy standard", but many elements, particularly the races, magic and the like are drawn from Western folklore which pre-dates LoTR by hundreds, if not thousands of years. Middle Earth will endure exactly because it is drawing from human culture and not trying to remake the wheel.

The other point to make was the that story of LoTR is born from Tolkien's experiences during WW1 and his reaction to increasing industrialisation of the countryside wrapped up in his Catholicism and steeped in his academic work in anglo-saxon literature. It's not surprising, perhaps, that some of the themes and images and cultural reference points are lost to a modern audience.

However, if I were alive, I will be very surprised if any single Warhammer story, or the world of Warhammer (or GamesWorkshop itself), Dragon Age and the people and companies associated with it, will be the topic of a conversation in 90 year's time.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I am not sure which particular features of Middle Earth you refer to as "fantasy standard", but many elements, particularly the races, magic and the like are drawn from Western folklore which pre-dates LoTR by hundreds, if not thousands of years.

While that is true, Tolkien did a lot to set them in stone. Elves and dwarfs in an awful lot of fantasy are based very strongly on Tolkien...for some reason all the dwarfs are Scottish, rather than Semitic nowdays though.

 

[duchaked]

Of course LotR is still relevant, even if it's just because of its enormous influence on fantasy. The simplest definition of a High Fantasy setting is "like Lord of the Rings."

You should definitely see The Hobbit too.

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."

whether or not it fits canon standards or whatnot, I was shocked to see some eagles DIE in the LotR War in the North game. apparently arrows and the like make for effective AA defense x.x

they aren't invincible lol

 

[Megalodon]

Not to mention the Jabberslythe, or whatever. Every army has to have a big tanky thing. Not like in the old days where maybe you could have a Steam Tank or Doomwheel, with the odd dragon or giant thrown in. Every army has to have a big OtT flying chariot with deathrays as standard. Brettonian knights on pegasi are normal, so are empire knights on demigryphs or whatever. Everything is glowing or on fire or both.

So much this. Although some armies get away with it. The likes of the Arachnarok Spider and the new Cauldron of Blood I don't have a problem with, becuase they're either revamped versions of things that already existed, or a new thing that logically fits in with the established nature of the army. Whereas the Empire got a weird cart thing (whoch is annoying because they already had the Steam Tank as a big centerpiece model) and the Demigryph Knights, both of which I felt were produced from a mindset of "we a need a big thing and monstrous cavalry for the Empire", instead of "I've got a cool new idea for a new Empire unit".

I think my overall point- that LotR hasn't been overshadowed by Warhammer because Warhammer is ultimately a soulless, corporate monstrosity which has no creative drive beyond contriving reasons for people to buy over-priced miniatures for a shallow strategy game- still stands.

I'd disagree with this. Warhammer hasn't overshadowed LotR because it is primarily a tabletop wargame, which is a far more niche market than books and films. Also, GW wasn't always the corporate monstosity it is today (I'd also argue that thr game itself wasn't particularly shallow until 8th ed. started ruining everything).

I struck me worst reading the beastman book. My first love is elves, but my first army was Beasts of Chaos which I got into without really having a load of background in the game. I set up an army concept that was to be somewhat visually stylized from Greek myths, essentially it was a warband full of men who abandon their lives in the Old World to do whatever they wish, fall under the gaze of Slaanesh and become corrupted into beasts. The rank and file infantry were all mutated from hooved prey species, while the leadership were mostly female and mostly to have been mutated from predator species like wolves, the idea being this army is particularly terrifying to the Old World dwellers because the females are on top and the males are content to spend their days idly drinking wine until they need to plunder again, but there was to also be an elder Cthonic deity angle. I'm not going to pretend it was the best army concept, but it had an internal logic and even a goddamned economy to the idea.

There are far worse army concepts. IMO this is more in line with the WFRP portrayl of the Old World though. Better suited to a smaller scale conflict, rather than the larger events and wars the core game tries to portray.

Then the latest edition of Beast Men came out, and the book was all about how the Beastmen are evil because they HATE humanity. You know, even more than all the other armies out there that HATE humanity. This sit around and HATE you to DEATH! GROWR, aren't they scary? It was just so stupid it ended up killing my drive to finish. But if it hadn't, you know, been so disappointing as to make me give up on the whole product line, it would have been a smart economic move- the new rules required me to re-base all my existing units and buy a whole bunch more boxes just to have legal units.

This makes me wonder why you reacted so strongly to this. The change was pretty slight from Beasts of Chaos to Beastmen, with a shift to focusing on humans as the enemy instead of all the civilised races and making them more motivated by hatred than by Chaos. Now I'm not saying these were good changes. But I'm slightly surprised you found them to be a deal breaker. Sadly GW canon has taken many far worse beatings than this (like Matt Ward, fuck that guy).

 

[Strazdas]

Let me ask you something. Do people still use word "Orc"? Do we see "orcs" in games like "Orcs must die" and the like? yes?
You know what? Tolkien invented orcs. The first mention of word ORC known to humans is Tolkien books.
SO yes, he is VERY relevant. I mean heck most of RPGs are so heavily influenced by it people are actually rallying up to find something that isnt Tolkien influenced.

 

[Someone Depressing]

It's a huge influence, and although not as many people have read it, The Silmaria (or whatever) is famous for being a long, well writte and highly influential book written over a man's entire life.

Even if the universe dies after the next Hobbit movie, its influence will never go away; it's left too deep a scar (which you may consider good or bad).

Lord of The Rings will never die. Perhaps its name will be forgotten and people will simply say "It came from x", "x" not being Lord of The Rings. But it did come from Lord of The Rings.

 

[Boba Frag]

Of course LotR is still relevant, even if it's just because of its enormous influence on fantasy. The simplest definition of a High Fantasy setting is "like Lord of the Rings."

You should definitely see The Hobbit too.

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."

Thank you for exploding that lazy and obnoxious 'plot hole'.

It's one that's always irritated me as a fan of the books first and foremost.

I find it interesting that many people on the thread refer to the movies first, then the games, but seldom the actual source material.
Which is a shame, to be honest, as it's one of the most engaging books I've ever read- I found it very, very difficult to read much other fantasy after it because I was so in love with Tolkien's living, breathing Middle Earth which had its own history and cultures, adventures and the ever present sense that you walked upon the lands of your forefathers at every step.
It's a setting that I find so rich and refreshing to return to again and again I can't ever see myself getting bored with it.

It's been a while since I've watched the movies, which I adore, but ever since I first read the Lord of the Rings when I was 12 going on 13, I've returned to Middle Earth more or less every year to dive in and out of the books.

Perhaps that makes me a Tolkien obsessive, but the fact remains that I can never grow tired or bored of a book that transports me instantly to another world with a word describing the glint of snow on the Misty Mountains, or the thundering clamour of the Falls of Rauros.

I'd definitely recommend people to approach it as a book that starts off as a slightly slow burning tale, that steadily ramps up the fear and danger that Frodo and his companions face.

Which brings me to another point- Frodo of the movies is often portrayed as weak willed and helpless, which is a shame, as this undermines what Tolkien presents Frodo as in the books.

He is someone who is way in over his head, but remains firmly resolute to do the right thing.

A person whose strength of will is much greater than it appears and who continues to seek the destruction of the One Ring, even though it constantly weighs on his mind, because he knows how evil it is, and what will happen to other people if he fails.

This is getting a bit long, so I'll sign off and let you guys to it.

 

[Megalodon]

snip

Fair enough, I'd forgotten just how bizare some of the Beasts fluff went. Personally I found making them less Chaos the more objectionable aspect. It was weird how they seemed to want to strip any servitude/loyalty to the Dark Gods out of what had previouslt been referred to as "The Children of Chaos"

 

[bug_of_war]

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.

Here's the thing though, we tend to surround ourselves with like minded people, so of course you're going to find many people in your direct association vicinity to agree with you. For example, all of my friends thought Mass Effect 3 was great and so did I, our opinion isn't the most popular, but we all think similarly to one and other, hence our opinions are similar.

Also, Lord of the Ring was heavily inspired by Norse mythology and in some ways made the old Norse myths relevant to modern times. For example, Elves and Dwarves, two very iconic races found in practically all role playing games stem from Norse mythology. Without The Lord of the Ring I very much believe we would have little knowledge of either of the two fictional races. Also, thanks to TLOTR using Norse Mythology as a template, it has a very deep and intriguing story which seems to click with a lot of people now days (Look at the amount of money the films are making).

Now, I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, it isn't, it's just not for everyone else. You are very much allowed to believe it is as stale as a month old dog shit, but understand that there are a large number of people whom consider TLOTR to be a better version of Norse mythology, just as you find Dragon Age/Warhammer to be a better version of TLOTR.

 

[Rblade]

"Ummmmm...why didn't we just take the Eagles to Mordor?"

flying snakes, witch king of angmar, saurons gaze, 10.000 orcs with bows, Saruman. Without distraction they would have had to scrape the eagle residue of the black gate with a spatula. They aren't immortal. please please please stop making this stupid argument. And that is ignoring the fact that the eagles are described in the book as having an overall stuborn "don't care" attitude about man kind. Gandalf is a very special case.

As to OT. As many have said before, Tolkien invented what is now standard fantasy setting. Stocky stubborn mountain dwelling dwarfs, dainty tree welling arrogant bow shooting elves. On top of that even if the setting has maby moved slightly out of the main stream it's still a timeless classic to fantasy fans

 

[Puzzlenaut]

Well considering the cultural impact is still clearly seen today as the definitive fantasy and the movies was one of the biggest risks any adaptation has ever made and it turned out to be a bunch of quality films, yes it's still relevant. If it wasn't it would have been sent into complete obscurity but many people still enjoy the books and movies and some people enjoy the hobbit. I don't really but yes I think lord of the rings is still quite relevant.

Though you are quite brave claiming of all things, dragon age and warhammer are greater then lord of the rings. Fine in their own merits but they need lord of the rings far more then lord of the rings ever did.

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.

Lord of the Rings created a massive world unlike anything anyone has ever seen, with subtleties to it that barely any of the flood of imitators has equalled. There isn't a constant barrage of magical explosions in lord of the rings: magic works by invisible influence and corruption, primarily. Other fantasy works don't understand that more explosion =/= more cool

Warhammer has added literally nothing of note to the genre except a perfected form of a 12 year old's perception of what is "cool". Dragon Age is better than Warhammer but still rather sterile and dull, with the arbitrary and flat moral choices that typify all recent Bioware games.

The slow, creeping evil that seeps through and slowly corrupts society in LotR is far more sinister than the super-muscular Orkz of Warhammer or totally-not-zombies of Dragon Age could ever be. You assert that Lord of the Rings is being 'outdone' and then name literally two of the worst examples of the sterile, shameless LotR rip-offs that pack in literally every tired old fantasy trope that LotR created in the first place.

As a final note: in of itself, LotR is a beautiful piece of literature that holds up magnificently to this day, and in this respect alone will remain relevant for decades to come.

 

[RJ 17]

Snip.

Thank you, you're only about the seventh person to quote me saying the exact same thing. What's really funny is that you all apparently missed the fact that I find that very argument to be a bunch of hogwash. Clearly there's in-story reasons for why it wouldn't work, but also because if they did that there wouldn't be a story at all. The enjoyment comes from the journey, not from accomplishing the end goal.

Please, please, please try reading more comments to make sure that you're not going to be the 7th person in line pestering someone about something when in reality there's no need to be pestering them at all. I, and I'd imagine others, would greatly appreciate it.

 

[Vladimir Stamenov]

I'm not trolling, I'm genuinely asking - is there anyone here, who, after reading and re-reading LotR when he was 12/13/14 but has since read diverse fantasy, sci-fi, classics and contemporary literature ACTUALLY enjoy the books when they've tried reading them recently? Especially the stale characterisation on both sides?

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

"Ummmmm...why didn't we just take the Eagles to Mordor?"

flying snakes, witch king of angmar, saurons gaze, 10.000 orcs with bows, Saruman. Without distraction they would have had to scrape the eagle residue of the black gate with a spatula. They aren't immortal. please please please stop making this stupid argument.

The best way to stop people from making that argument is to not respond to it at all. Just stop paying attention to it. Plus, complaining about a plot convenience in a book that was released, what, 60 years ago is pretty goddamn petty to begin with. Tolkien wrote it the way he wrote it and that's it. Nothing we can do to change it. Not like there's going to be a rewrite of Lotr with the eagles being replaced with celestial flying meatball octopi or something.

 

[Zykon TheLich_v1legacy]

However, that is not to say it was always like that. Back when Warhammer was like a D&D campaign about the Holy Roman Empire, as played by Monty Python characters, there might have been some merit in the argument. Unfortunately, it's lasting contribution to fantasy seems to have been ""grimdark", in the worst way.

Just so you know, Strike to Stun is still going strong if you want to do some good old fashioned grognardin'