Watched Born of Hope today, and I'm once again impressed! The love drama wasn't much to my taste though, but the rest was great! I would be an ass if I was to start complaining. They seemed more "pro" this time. The amount of dialogue in Elvish (right?) was impressing, one of many things that shows the effort these people have made making these movies. Also, great acting. Especially Arathorn! He really looked very "Arathorn-like" as well. The costumes and weapons were awesome (again), and the locations were once again fantastic. This time they were even better in my opinion, especially the Dunedain camp. The fight scenes looked pro too, the first one was epic One question though, it's been a while since I read the part about Arathorn and Gilraen and the Dunedain, but is this really how it happened in the book? Some of the stuff (the three-way love drama for instance) seemed slightly made up, so to speak. I also seem to remember that Arathorn went to some mountains/other place with Elledan and Elrohir, not that they were attacked in the camp. Not that it bothered me, just curious. After all, this isn't a big change compared to Jackson's changes (if it is a change at all)

All jokes aside, Born of Hope is as much an Adaptation as are Jackson's films. Calling either of them "fan-fiction" just because some elements were extrapolated, added, or altered is a misuse of the term. Fan Fictions, are usually entirely unique stories based on Original Stories and Characters, not Adaptations. An Adaptation is the conversion of a story from its original medium, into another form of media, alterations often being a necessary part of the equation. The central story-line in Born of Hope is based on Tolkien's writings about Aragorn's parentage, so I think it counts more as Adaptation, than Fan Fiction. [b:3hk1d694]GB[/b:3hk1d694]

I just used "unique", because it's poor form to say Original Twice . A Fan Fic is a New Story based on Characters and Settings from an Original Published Author, film, comic, TV series, whatever. Yes, some Fan Fics are extrapolations that "fill in the blanks". But that doesn't necessarily make them Adaptations. And yes, Fan Fics can have whole new characters set in the same Universe of the source material. And yes, Fan Fics can also be in Film form, or Graphic Novel form etc. An Adaptation is the conversion of the original source material from one media to another, and there are often alterations along the way, but it still follows the key plots, characters, and settings. And by the way, Kirk and Spock are original source characters. [b:nhblyrsw]GB[/b:nhblyrsw]

I think you have erred there Eldo, it is not The Ring Sauron is looking for its the ring of Barahir- he's trying to track down the last of the Dunedain in the North. Something Tolkien implies was always an aim of Sauron without giving any details of it after the Angmar stuff beyond reports of skirmishes with orcs and trolls- so I don't have a problem with that. The big mistake for me is that Arathorn discovers the Necromancer is Sauron before Gandalf does, which means the sons of Elrond would have known and therefore the Wise in general- but they didn't until Gandalf goes into the Necromancer's dungeons- so there is quite a big mistake in BoH but not about the Ring.

Ah, well, I can see that they pretty much nailed the death of Arathorn then! I stand corrected. But Eldo, isn't this movie also an adaption? It's a fan-made film, but still a film. They used the books for inspiration, Jackson did the same. What's the difference?

I get your point. Though, some of you seem to be of the opinion that Jackson's movies are fanfiction as well

Hehe By the way, re-read my comment after posting it, and it was meant as a simple joke, but I can see now how it might be interpreted like some whiny accusation. That was not intended!

[quote="pettytyrant101":27wlm5s0]So why is PJ's work still counted (by everyone except me) as an adaptation when BoH isn't, even when BoH arguably is closer to the source material than PJ's?[/quote:27wlm5s0] The story of The Lord of the Rings is about the Fellowship, the Ring, the War, and a few other things. Much as we criticize PJ (and I know I've done my fair share of that), at a basic level he's still telling the same story, regardless of all his changes and additions. Born of Hope is not telling the story of The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, or any other book that Tolkien wrote. It's taking a few brief sentences and constructing its own story around that. Thus it is a fanfiction, not an adaptation, because it is not telling the same story as the original. Incidentally, this is a very similar situation to what will necessarily happen when we see the White Council on screen, which is why I have long maintained that that will be fanfiction as well, because it is not part of the story of The Hobbit. [quote:27wlm5s0]I don't see how BoH doesn't meet all these criteria save its source was not an entire book.[/quote:27wlm5s0] LOTR is about trying to destroy the Ring and stop Sauron from taking over Middle-earth. BOH is about the plight of the Northern Dunedain. LOTR stars the Fellowship of the Ring, BOH stars Arathorn, Gilraen, Elgarain, and a few others. LOTR is set in a wide variety of settings around Middle-earth, but with the exception of Imladris it shares none of them with BOH. They're two separate and distinct stories.

[quote="Gandalfs Beard":manbdk3h]Yes, some Fan Fics are extrapolations that "fill in the blanks". But that doesn't necessarily make them Adaptations.[/quote:manbdk3h] Um, yes. That's exactly what I said. [i:manbdk3h]Born of Hope[/i:manbdk3h] is a "fill in the blanks" fanfiction, but it's not an adaptation. You were the one who said that it was "as much an Adaptation as are Jackson's films" and not fanfiction. [quote:manbdk3h]And yes, Fan Fics can have whole new characters set in the same Universe of the source material. And yes, Fan Fics can also be in Film form, or Graphic Novel form etc.[/quote:manbdk3h] Again, agreed. [i:manbdk3h]The Hunt for Gollum[/i:manbdk3h] and [i:manbdk3h]Born of Hope[/i:manbdk3h] were fanfictions made in the medium of film. This is what I was saying before. [quote:manbdk3h]An Adaptation is the conversion of the original source material from one media to another, and there are often alterations along the way, but it still follows the key plots, characters, and settings.[/quote:manbdk3h] Which is why [i:manbdk3h]Born of Hope[/i:manbdk3h] is not an adaptation. I'm really confused now. First you said that it is an adaptation, but you're now listing all the reasons why it isn't. [quote:manbdk3h]And by the way, Kirk and Spock are original source characters. [/quote:manbdk3h] I know that. My point was that fanfiction does not have to be based on original characters, which you implied it did. EDIT: I think I might understand the reason for the confusion now. When I say "original character" I mean a character that was invented by the author [i:manbdk3h]of the fanfiction[/i:manbdk3h]. (The fanfic community generally uses the abbreviation "OC" for this.) When you say "original character", do you mean characters from the original work?

[quote="Eldorion":24pm6fv0] [quote:24pm6fv0]An Adaptation is the conversion of the original source material from one media to another, and there are often alterations along the way, but it still follows the key plots, characters, and settings.[/quote:24pm6fv0] Which is why [i:24pm6fv0]Born of Hope[/i:24pm6fv0] is not an adaptation. I'm really confused now. First you said that it is an adaptation, but you're now listing all the reasons why it isn't. [/quote:24pm6fv0] Actually, to me this looks like the reason why it [i:24pm6fv0]is[/i:24pm6fv0] an adaptation (see, I'm using the right word ), not why it is not. It's a conversion of original material (RotK appendices) from book to film. Doesn't that make it an adaptation?

"I think adaptations - to borrow a few words from GB - follow "key plots, characters, and settings." In other words, an adaptation of a book is still telling the same basic story of the book."- Eldo (and handily saves me having to quote GB too!) I don't see how BoH doesn't meet all these criteria save its source was not an entire book. I listed above the bits in RotK appendix they have drawn on and all the 'key plots, characters, and settings' have been taken from the source and adapted into a film, surely? The love story and the characters it involves in BoH could be said to be fan fiction, in that they do not exist in the source material at all as far as I can see. However PJ created whole new bits of story that weren't in the books not to mention changing some characters beyond recognition (Gothmog for example beyond the name is a completely made up character). So why is PJ's work still counted (by everyone except me) as an adaptation when BoH isn't, even when BoH arguably is closer to the source material than PJ's?

"But does for example making an entire 40 or so minutes of story up, without any basis in the source material what so ever (as they did in TT) fit this criteria? " Nope, it doesn't "Yes it would and it would also completely fail the definition of adaptation. His failure to spot this does not surprise me" I guess that's just a way of saying that all the different events in the book would be hard to fit in. "Based on LotR I can live with, an adaptation of LotR it is not." I agree a bit, but I also disagree a bit! I do think they're less adaptations, more "inspired by the book", but they do include many good parts of the books too, so they are arguably adaptations as well. Whether one thinks that they are good or bad adaptations is another matter.

[quote="Eldorion":3k5xfttv] I think "they do add some new stuff" is a big exaggeration. Almost the entire story except for the kernel of it and a bit of backstory are the inventions of the director of the film. That doesn't make it bad, but it makes it a new and distinct work. [/quote:3k5xfttv] Ok, won't argue with you there, I'll agree that it was an exaggeration. By "some new stuff" I was referring to the love story though, not the script itself, which of course is hugely made up. [quote:3k5xfttv] By nature of being set in an existing world and - often - starring existing characters, fanfiction has never been 100% made up by the fanfic author. I'm really curious as to whether any of you guys read fanfiction on a regular basis, because fill-in-the-blank stories and phrases like "OC" are not exactly obscure.[/quote:3k5xfttv] I think you misunderstood me a bit, Eldo. I meant that (and I didn't write it, so misunderstanding is likely) the [i:3k5xfttv]events[/i:3k5xfttv] that include these characters or worlds were 100% made up. And the events in Born of Hope aren't 100% made up, so that's why I'm not considering it fanfiction. That being said, I don't read fanfiction, but I'm familiar with some fanfiction stuff (Star Wars comics for example). But I don't really know much about it, so I'm in danger of saying things I don't have a clue about. I do know something about adaptations though, and that's what I base my "BoH = Adaptation" statements on Possibly a long answer incoming to Petty's question : "So why is PJ's work still counted (by everyone except me) as an adaptation when BoH isn't, even when BoH arguably is closer to the source material than PJ's?" in a while, didn't finish writing my answer earlier, have to do some research first

[quote="pettytyrant101":g68ctflj] So why is PJ's work still counted (by everyone except me) as an adaptation when BoH isn't, even when BoH arguably is closer to the source material than PJ's?[/quote:g68ctflj] First of all, I agree that Born of Hope is closer to Tolkien's material than Jackson's films. Considering the huge difference in the material these films (BoH and LotR) are based on though, I don't mind this. The story of the War of the Ring is huge, the story that BoH is based on isn't, so this is no wonder. But as an adaptation, I think Born of Hope is closer than Jackson's trilogy. Now, the following wall of text is not an answer to your question, but it is related to it in a way I never counted Jackson's trilogy as adaptations, but (third time I say this now? ) rather movies that are [i:g68ctflj]based [/i:g68ctflj] on the books. They say this in the EE documentaries too. They themselves call it an adaptation though, so one may of course rightfully criticize their faithfulness and accuracy. They clearly stated that they were not making a film for the readers of the book, but a film for everyone, and that it was impossible to include everything in three movies. They had to change some parts so that certain scenes in the films wouldn't be understandable unless you had read the books and knew the background story. This often happens with adaptations (Harry Potter anyone? ), and this would have happened to LotR too if they had decided to make a full adaptation. Something would've had to be taken away, and left the non-readers confused. Here is an excerpt from a letter from the script writers to Miramax (I think) that came with the first treatment of the LotR books. It is quoted from disc 1 of the FotR appendices: "Dear reader This is not a film script, but merely a treatment ... a first pass at distilling Mr. Tolkien's vast narrative down into a form suitable by the movies. Our focus has been in making whatever modifications or deletions we feel are required to tell this complex and epic story in the clearest possible way. We have tried to make it work for an audience who have not - and never will - read the books, but at the same time, we have tried to write something that will be satisfying for those fans of the books who cannot wait to see the movie." This is basically what I was talking about. And I thought they did great. Thousands of people who have never read the books love the films, and thousands of people who read the books enjoyed the films too. There are also thousands of people who read the books, but dislike the movies, but that is inevitable with adaptations (Obviously, I don't have the numbers, but I think thousands is a fair assumption for any of the three "categories" I mentioned). Another quote from Jackson: "The book is a great book, the story is a great story, the characters are great, but it's unfilmable, and [i:g68ctflj]it is [/i:g68ctflj]unfilmable. If we were to just shoot the book page by page, scene by scene, it would just be a mess" The same as I wrote, just quoting for proof I can also say that I agree with Jackson, the book in its entirety is not filmable, it's just too huge. Only as a television series could it have been done complete justice. However, I do agree with the Purists around here that they could have kept and included more of the book than they did, and still made it work. But this was how Jackson & Co saw it, and they were the ones who made the movies, so there's nothing we can do about that. Here is a quote from Christopher Lee: "There are lots of things in these films, which are not in the books. And I think in most cases, they are improvements. Cause they are scenes that do have to be seen." Coming from a man who personally knew Tolkien, this is saying a lot (or, at least, I think it says a lot). And Lee is also quite a Purist I'd say. Now, this reply got a bit out of hand I guess, but as we were discussing adaptations I thought it would be fitting here. And it also briefly sums up my thoughts on "The Lord of the Rings - book to movie" discussion. By the way, if there are any weird words or sentences, please let me know and I'll try to explain better what I mean. I tend to mess up when writing longer texts in English

’I never counted Jackson's trilogy as adaptations, but rather movies that are based on the books.’ On this we seem to agree. ’ it was impossible to include everything in three movies. They had to change some parts so that certain scenes in the films wouldn't be understandable unless you had read the books ’ I agree they would have to be very long films to accommodate everything. And changes would be necessary, that is the task of an adapter. But does for example making an entire 40 or so minutes of story up, without any basis in the source material what so ever (as they did in TT) fit this criteria? ’If we were to just shoot the book page by page, scene by scene, it would just be a mess’ Yes it would and it would also completely fail the definition of adaptation. His failure to spot this does not surprise me. "There are lots of things in these films, which are not in the books. And I think in most cases, they are improvements. Cause they are scenes that do have to be seen." I suspect he was thinking mainly about his own role and scenes such as the ents storming Isengard. And yes as an adaptation you can get away with that. But personally I believe that if you ditch large chunks of what the the author wrote in favour of large chunks of stuff you've made up then you fail as adaptation. Based on LotR I can live with, an adaptation of LotR it is not.

"I wouldn't call it an adaptation, but I think that's already been agreed!" Not by me!!! I wouldn't call PJ's efforts an adaptation and I think BoH comes closer.

[quote="Ally":1o27alrw]I think it's a great film- hopefully we can agree on that![/quote:1o27alrw] Definitely Anyway, as an adaptation it really is much better than Jackson's films, can't argue about that. Or, we can argue whether it is an adaptation or not, but the fact that it stays much closer to the book than the trilogy is something we can agree on I think.

There's a thread for this in other fantasy stories Ringdrotten, not surprised you missed it though its slipped down to page 2 or 3. Feel free to revive it.

[quote="pettytyrant101":1m2hh64q]There's a thread for this in other fantasy stories Ringdrotten, not surprised you missed it though its slipped down to page 2 or 3. Feel free to revive it.[/quote:1m2hh64q] I'll read through it and see if there's anything new to add

It's the director's conception of the backstory to Aragorn's birth: the marriage of Arathorn and Gilraen and the plight of the Northern Dunedain in general. It also features the director herself in a rather prominent acting role.

Hmm, should be interesting. Definitely worth a watch!

[quote="Ringdrotten":uaov8345]I've only read a few, so I don't know much about them. One I remember though, Boba Fett was apparently alive and kicking, after The Return of the Jedi. That one I did not like [/quote:uaov8345] A good deal of the Star Wars "Expanded Universe", as it's known, is pretty dumb. It's one reason I'm quite glad that the Tolkien Estate keeps a close eye on the rights to Tolkien's creation. All the spin-offs have served to cheapen the Star Wars Universe, even though there are some good books.

[quote="Gandalfs Beard":1ezxz77h]I know the Star Wars books are supposed to tie-in with film canon, but other than Splinter of the Mind's Eye, I've pretty much ignored them.[/quote:1ezxz77h] The only one I can remember reading (aside from one or two of the novelizations, which I didn't really like) was [i:1ezxz77h]Death Star[/i:1ezxz77h]. It was pretty impressed by it, except for the scenes when they tried to use dialogue from the films and then intercut with characters' thoughts, which were pretty painful to read.