The "ownership" of modern mythologies like LOTR

[Black Breathalizer]

One of the themes running through the most heated debates you find on the Star Wars boards or the Lord of the Rings boards involves ownership. Who "owns" these stories, the authors or the fans?

When some Star Wars fans complain that George Lucas hasn't stayed true to his original movies, other fans counter that it's George's story and vision not the fans so GL should be able to do whatever he wants to with the series. When Jackson revises some aspects of FOTR for the screen (i.e. Arwen's role, the breaking of the fellowship), purists complain that there was no reason for PJ to alter Tolkien's vision. Who's right and why are the debates on these two fronts so passionate?

My take is that Star Wars and Lord of the Rings are the two most powerful modern-day examples of mythology. Something about these two stories captured the imagination of people around the world. But it was much more than just entertainment on a grand scale. Something about the stories themselves affected people in very profound and personal ways. That's the only way you can explain why fans would dare argue that the creator of 'their' Star Wars, sold out. It also explains why some Tolkienites refuse to embrace the 'new' cinematic telling of 'their' Lord of the Rings because it isn't a literal translation of the books.

My view is that living mythologies through the ages have always been dynamic and ever-changing. Once a mythology is born within a culture, it no longer belongs to its original author, be it some Greek or Norse storyteller or JRR Tolkien. In the ancient days the evolution took place when the old storytellers chose to add their own distinct slants to the stories. The only difference today is that the movie screen has replaced the campfire and a screenwriter/director has replaced the storyteller.

What's your take on this?

[Sween]

I hate to be so to the point but the ownership bellongs to the people that stump up for the rights to these things.

Writing and movie i have allways seen as gifts to the world. Both the world of star wars and middle earth are two places i wish i could forsake this world for and i thank there creators (george lucas and JRR Tolkien) for bringing them to me as they have both brought me much joy over the years.

Fans own jack **** of these worlds but it doesnt mean that we cannot dip into them now and again.

Regarding the star wars i personally feel that lucas has just lost the plot (theres a good reason that 4,5 and 6 were made first) and the movies he has made just dont feel like star wars (everything so damn clean). As for PJ he does not own Lord of the rings per say but he has got the ring it seems to produce an interpritation of it. The way in which Lord of the rings is written in a book would not transfer well into a movie there is too much long dialog and not enough converstion. Movies need to keep the dialog reasonably sharp and a lot of the characters in the book will often say 10 words when one will do which is good in a book but bad in film.

seeing as you are asking does this work become a property of the comunity. well is toliiens writting not much more than a collection of theames and languages from throgh out the ages? His work is hevily based upon other works before hand. So if he did it im sure he would not mind people taking his work then baseing there work upon his (he probably would not like it very much but you know who cares).

The origional author will allways own the story they wrote but we are all allowed to interpeerate it as best we please.

[sun-star]

Tolkien. Sorry to be literal and unsophisticated but he created it, he made it, it belongs to him. At what stage does a book or film become 'mythology' instead of just story (if the two things are in fact so different)? Lots of people like Harry Potter, but it's a story, not a mythology. Many books/films affect people in personal, profound ways. I wouldn't say that means the fans have any 'ownership' of the original book/film. Does every creation belong to someone who loves it just because of their emotional investment? Just because you care about something doesn't give you any claim on it. If Tolkien were alive today and still writing, no one could question his right to do whatever he wanted with the world he invented - just because he's dead doesn't reduce his claim on it, IMO. We owe Tolkien for giving us so much pleasure - not the other way around.

[Black Breathalizer]

Actually I wonder if "ownership" is too strong of a word to use for this discussion and gets people thinking about all the legalistic stuff.

My point was more that some stories become so strong and personal within a culture that they take on a life of their own. When this happens, the author - living or dead - loses some degree of control.

The reality is that Peter Jackson has forever changed the mythology (for better or worse) of Lord of the Rings. Don't get me wrong. PJ hasn't changed Tolkien's books. They are still there for everyone to love and enjoy just as people did fifty years ago. Just as the myths of old told over campfires, people's perceptions of this great story are changing with the times and with the medium.

[BeardofPants]

Lets see if we can guess how many posts pass before BB mentions "purist"? Oh wait...

[Earniel]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Lets see if we can guess how many posts pass before BB mentions "purist"? Oh wait...

Too late

I don't think you can compare Tolkien's middle-earth to ancient mythology on that level. Sure he borrowed several elements of it but unlike ancient mythology, Middle-earth has ONE creator: Tolkien. In old mythologies you have several possible creators/writers: Homer, Taliesin, Oisinn, .... You can't pinpoint one writer who created the whole of the Egyptian, Scandinavian or Greek mythology. The material has also been handed down for generations so that -if hypothetically there ever was one- the one true creator is lost in history. But mythologies grow most of the time from combining several stories from different stories. Most mythologies were also handed down a lot orally before they got written down. It is natural for them to change in that course. In that case I think you can more or less say that the mythology is owned by the people.

But Middle-earth is a different case. For one it isn't handed down through generations and the only creator is known. Middle-earth is made up by Tolkien and therefore belongs to him. It may inspire a lot of people but that doesn't change matters of ownership. The world has changed a great deal more than turning campfires into cinema's.

[BeardofPants]

Boy, I sure hope that Akhenaten copyrighted his monotheistic creation myths of Aten. Hmm....

[Rána Eressëa]

Originally posted by Eärniel
I don't think you can compare Tolkien's middle-earth to ancient mythology on that level. Sure he borrowed several elements of it but unlike ancient mythology, Middle-earth has ONE creator: Tolkien. In old mythologies you have several possible creators/writers: Homer, Taliesin, Oisinn, .... You can't pinpoint one writer who created the whole of the Egyptian, Scandinavian or Greek mythology. The material has also been handed down for generations so that -if hypothetically there ever was one- the one true creator is lost in history. But mythologies grow most of the time from combining several stories from different stories. Most mythologies were also handed down a lot orally before they got written down. It is natural for them to change in that course. In that case I think you can more or less say that the mythology is owned by the people.

But Middle-earth is a different case. For one it isn't handed down through generations and the only creator is known. Middle-earth is made up by Tolkien and therefore belongs to him. It may inspire a lot of people but that doesn't change matters of ownership. The world has changed a great deal more than turning campfires into cinema's.

There's your answer. Tolkien created and owns Middle-earth. He is Eru.

[gdl96]

And he still does own and control Middle Earth. Sure, PJ may have changed a few things (many of which were necessary for the movie), but if you go back and read that books, they are the same as they have been for fifty years. These movies are in no way a true representation of the books, and they should not be treated so. And I predict that the legacy of paper Middle Earth will long outlive the legacy of the 35mm Middle Earth.

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Actually I wonder if "ownership" is too strong of a word to use for this discussion and gets people thinking about all the legalistic stuff.

My point was more that some stories become so strong and personal within a culture that they take on a life of their own. When this happens, the author - living or dead - loses some degree of control.

The reality is that Peter Jackson has forever changed the mythology (for better or worse) of Lord of the Rings. Don't get me wrong. PJ hasn't changed Tolkien's books. They are still there for everyone to love and enjoy just as people did fifty years ago. Just as the myths of old told over campfires, people's perceptions of this great story are changing with the times and with the medium.

I'm not really sure there is a LOTR mythology. What is said in the books is it, and it doesn't change. As said in the books forum, we must keep the movie and book separate.

[Millane]

i think that we are fans and readers/watchers the creator is the owner and it is pretty clear cut from where i am viewing it.
as regards to PJ chaging around some of tolkiens work for the movie it was PJ movie based on the books he kept it as true as he could so that not only tolkien fans could understand it but everyone else i think that that was a pretty bad example because it doesnt necessarily mean that he wanted to change everything but he had to.

[Black Breathalizer]

A pertinent quote from JRR Tolkien taken from page 8 of Tolkien: The Illustrated Encyclopedia:

"I would draw some of the great tales in fullness, and leave many only placed in the scheme, and sketched. The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama."

[bropous]

Right. And the reality is that "The Ten Commandments" changed the Bible forever.

Non sequitur.

[durin's bane]

lotr belongs to jrr tolkien, and star wars belongs to gl. even though there is a lotr movie, and sw books, it still is jrr's and george's stories. it doesn't belong to the fans or authors (star wars) or director person (lotr) but their both in page and screen for everyone to enjoy. i mean, i got the lotr books for christmas (except rotk) but i didn't appreciate them much until i saw the movie (it helped me understand the books a bit more because it got so confusing at parts!) i love both, book and movie.

[Black Breathalizer]

In the latest issue of Newsweek, Jeff Giles points out that many fans are more eager for Jackson's vision of Middle Earth than of JRR Tolkien's. I think this kind of comment is the reason behind many Tolkien fans hatred of Peter Jackson. They see Jackson as the Pied Piper leading flocks of LOTR fans away from Tolkien. But the source will always be Tolkien. That will never change.

What has changed is that LOTR will forevermore be associated with all the key players in the films (PJ, Howard Shore, Viggo, Elijah, Ian McKellan, etc.) the same way it has been associated with Christopher Tolkien since his father passed away. They are all modern-day myth-makers.

When he wrote the LOTR, Tolkien said he wanted to write a mythology for England. For better or worse, Tolkien got his wish the day he signed over the movie rights to LOTR. Like all the great world mythologies of old, the mythology of the Lord of the Rings continues to evolve with new storytellers.

[Melko Belcha]

LotR is not a mythology and neither is Star Wars. Both worlds are created by a single person. Mythology is the ancient religious beliefs of cultures, LotR and Star Wars are fictional stories. No matter my feelings or thoughts about Tolkien's work, it will always be Tolkien's work, not mine. The same goes with SW, I hate Episode 1 & 2, I do not like where GL is going with his story, but it is his story and I have no right to tell him how to handle his story. The same goes with Tolkien, reading the HoME series I like some of his older ideas more then the ones he choose to keep, but it is his story and his decision, not mine, it is not my world or my story.

Just because I heard a song or read a book that changed my life, does that mean I own the song or book? No. It always belongs to the person who created it, no matter the impact it has on me or anybody else.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

What's your take on this?

That for some reason you have a deep insecurity over the fact that many Tolkien book fans have problems with (all of, or parts of) the films. That this drives you to constantly start threads that will ultimately lead to discussions of how Jackson has in some way usurped Tolkien.

“Jackson improved Tolkien”,
“changed the mythology”
“brought more skill to his craft than Tolkien did to his”
"it no longer belongs to its original author"
-And on and on and on.

You claim to be a fan of the book, but as soon as the arguments get heated your contempt for the author, his family and his story clearly shine through.

“It won't happen in Christopher Tolkien's lifetime but once the old coot finally kicks the bucket and one of his more enlightened kin takes over the family business, I could see the estate selling the film rights to the Silmarillion for mega-bucks.”

“ Why didn't a mortally wounded little Frodo ride to the fords on that big white horse all by himself like in the books”

“I can't wait to see what improvements Jackson and Co. make to TTT!!!”

So here we go again, I’m sure this thread will produce some more of your insightful words. This is currently my personal favorite, it’s old, but still a classic.

"Arwen? Using her in the flight to the ford was a stroke of genius."

Priceless.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by squinteyedsoutherner
for some reason you have a deep insecurity over the fact that many Tolkien book fans have problems with (all of, or parts of) the films.

I suspect the real insecurities run on the other side of the fence here. Don't worry, squinty. People will always love Tolkien and the books too.

[jerseydevil]

squinteyedsoutherner - very good points.

BB - Lord of the Rings is NOT a mythology as Ruinel has stated.

mythology - a body of myths, as that of a particular people.

myth - a traditional or legendary story.

See - Beowulf, King Arthur - those are myths. Lord of the Rings, Star Wars are not myths.

There is one person that Lord of the Rings belongs to - and that is Tolkien. It does not belong to Christopher Tolkien or Jackson - or anyone else. The only true Lord of the Rings is the book.

Just get over it already BB. In regards to the Jeff Giles supposed comment - if fans are more eager for Jackson's Middle Earth than Tolkiens - then they aren't fans of Lord of the Rings. They are simply Jackson fans - many are simple fan-girls who will move on 6 months after RotK leaves the theaters. If you look in the mirror you will see an example of one these psuedo Lord of the Rings fans. These "fans" are characterized by ass kissing tendencies toward Jackson, complete ignorance of the books, and a condescending attitude toward people who see the movies for what they are - "dumbed down hollywood action flicks".

I'm really beginning to think BB that the books were just too difficult for you to read or you didn't understand them. Now that you have watched the training wheel version Jackson put on the screen - you may actually be able to get on the big boy's bike and read the REAL Lord of the Rings. You may just be able to follow it a little bit better now. Just don't get too confused with Arwen not saving Frodo at the Ford and Aragorn not running from his heritage.

[Ringil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
In the latest issue of Newsweek, Jeff Giles points out that many fans are more eager for Jackson's vision of Middle Earth than of JRR Tolkien's. I think this kind of comment is the reason behind many Tolkien fans hatred of Peter Jackson. They see Jackson as the Pied Piper leading flocks of LOTR fans away from Tolkien. But the source will always be Tolkien. That will never change.

BB, One would have to be pretty dense to think that real fans of the real thing, i.e., JRRT's LOTR, would care that millions of dim bulbs might like a very simplified product that their simple minds can passively absorb without any real effort.

Personally, if the masses flocked to JRRT's books, I'd have to reconsider whether they were as good as I thought they were.