Well, things might have been "weird" in Numenor, and of course any realm with children has procreation, but I think the spirit of Tolkien's work would be diluted, dulled, and harmed by throwing in the gratuitous T&A that channels like HBO and shows like Game of Thrones have become known for. To be honest, one of the reasons I still haven't seen the show is because I was getting a little weary of heavy erotic elements in shows and I hear that GoT was quite gratuitous and piled it on. I don't need that. I'm not that desperate. It's one thing to show a realistic world where sex happens, brothels exist, etc., and quite another to dwell on it and have it thrown about. There is very little sex and nudity that needs to happen for story, as far as I'm concerned. I've seen it used to further the story of a show (A Very Secret Service on Netflix, for instance), and I've seen it just become the whole raison d'etre of shows and it's distracting.
On a "technical" level, there is nothing wrong with a female Gandalf, but the Maiar and Valar and other spirits of Tolkien's world definitely seem to manifest as one or the other. Pure speculation, but I think Tolkien would be really unhappy with somebody gender-swapping Gandalf. It's contrary to the writing and the world created, as far as I can read it, and I think Tolkien would hate and loathe the very notion of that sort of thing. He wouldn't want them messing around with the genders of the various spirit beings he created. He has male and female spirits, husbands and wives, some without consorts, and so forth. That's deliberate, it's part of the characters. Any deviation on such a fundamental level would, to me, be a clear indicator of propagandizing, virtue signalling, and (most importantly) a lack of respect for the author's work and voice.
reply
share
Otter (24464)
4 years ago
Well IMHO "GoT" did overdo the sex and violence, but it was actually pretty true to the Medieval world it was based on. GRRM did that deliberately, IMHO as a an attack on some of the more sugary clichés of the Fantasy genre - where the good guys are unfailingly noble and going on months-long quests in the wilderness doesn't effect your personal hygiene, and sex without birth control somehow never causes unplanned pregnancies. I respect GRRM and the TV show's attempt to bring the reality of life without technology to the genre, although I understand that a lot of people don't like it - I've told certain friends that they wouldn't like the show and shouldn't watch it, because of this.
Now it was Tolkien who actually started a lot of those clichés, with his unfailingly noble heroes and heroes who looked impressive after months in the wilderness, although it was others who built Tolkien's morality into annoying cliches. I do agree that including crude sex and violence into Tolkein's universe would be violating the author's vision for his world... although in the case of "GoT" crude sex and violence was actually honoring the author's vision. Well, the "LotR" movies made buckets of money although they were fairly true to Tolkien's view of morality, let's hope that Hollywood remembers it's possible to make lots of money without being gross.
reply
share
Ace_Spade (9544)
4 years ago
Sex and violence can be judiciously used, hinted at, or implied off-screen to present a real-feeling world without relying on stark nudity or disembowelings, but your point is well-taken. Since I haven't seen the show, I won't comment directly on GoT itself too much; I merely heard that the nudity was largely for shock, titilation, or "because they could".
Yes, I can respect stuff that gets into counterbalancing other works - as you say - perhaps by showing hygiene in a realistic fashion. On that particular point, I've long been amused that Monty Python were some of the first to show truer hygiene and filth in fantasy in Holy Grail.
I enjoy fantasy treated realistically, as you're describing, but I roll my eyes when I see nudity used clearly to bring in the viewers (gratuitous...basically porn, in other words). I'd site much of the nudity in the first few episodes of Rome as example. Some of it works, but a LOT of it seems to be happening to draw in viewers.
If it honours GRR Martin, that's groovy; again, I will refrain from too much commentary on that which I have not witnesed.
I couldn't agree with your final sentiment more. Hollywood often tries to mash everything into whatever "worked last time", and they (the producers, anyway) tend to forget that the "rules" change based on property, and honouring GRRM's vision works for GoT, but making LotR look like a GRRM work will break its essence and ruin the show.
reply
share
Otter (24464)
4 years ago
Well, I don't think you'd like GRRM, so I'm going to recommend that you don't watch it. Like a lot of people I know, I don't think you'd like it.
As for the high level of sex and violence, yes, that was both true to the author's vision (the author's imagination went some very strange places), and it was... a selling point. HBO was absolutely positively trying to get people to pay for their service, by offering things that couldn't be shown on network/basic TV stations, and I don't think that will be an issue for the upcoming Fantasy shows made for streaming.
Streaming is fairly new and is trying to capture the mainstream, so they aren't putting the same emphasis on "adult" programming as HBO has. If they're setting a show in Numenor then they do want to the fandom to tune in and go nuts, as well as the mainstream, and well. The Tolkien fandom does tend to be on the socially conservative side. So worry if you like, but it's too early to push the panic button.
And yeah, "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" showed a much more accurate version of Dark Ages life than any film that had the budget for horses.
reply
share
Ace_Spade (9544)
4 years ago
I plan to try the novels at some point. From what I've heard, I think I would enjoy them, and other people I know outside of keyboard-world have said I'd like them. I might even enjoy the show, I just felt a little swamped by that kind of thing at the time (the high-nudity thing), and didn't want another one right then. I love shows like The Last Kingdom and Knightfall. I love fantasy stuff. I just didn't want it at the time. Gratuitous stuff will always make me roll my eyes, but I still enjoyed Rome a LOT. I just chuckled at the obvious nudity-as-bait.
You're dead-on with that assessment of streaming. It's a double-edged sword. I like that there's content geared towards adults, but I also like stuff that I could watch where the writers weren't so reliant on the f-word or decapitations. Some of the best writing of all-time came out of the Hays Office era, and I think it was because guys like Billy Wilder had to come up with cleverer ways to show stuff like that.
I haven't hit the panic button. I did hit the cautious apprehension with a tinge of optimism button, though.
Holy Grail and then Gilliam's demi-Pythonic Jabberwocky. It's all mud and a dearth of dentistry.
reply
share
Otter (24464)
4 years ago
I suspect you wouldn't like the novels that "Game of Thrones" are based on, either. Everyone in the fandom agrees that the first two books are great, and go to hell in a handbasket after that. The author forgot how to advance a plot, and threw in plenty of gratuitous disgusting stuff.
But yeah, I think the economics of streaming support something closer to Tolkien's vision than the gratuitious sex and violence seen on HBO, but there's a world of difference between "closer" and "actually close". We'll see.
reply
share
Ace_Spade (9544)
4 years ago
I mean, I have so little time these days, I might not get around to trying them.
My fingers are crossed. If they get the big stuff right (the spiritual philosophies underpinning Tolkien's work, for instance), I'll be mostly happy. If they can nail the whole thing, I'll probably do a little dance.
reply
share