Hacker News Reader

Comment by Blackstrat | Hacker News Reader

This is no more Tolkien than the various incarnations of “Star Trek” pushed by Paramount+ are Star Trek. The names and locations may be similar, but once they have diverged from the original creator’s vision and mythology, it’s simply exploitation for financial gain.

View on HN

Speaking of star trek, I'd highly recommend "lower decks" to anyone who is repulsed by the latest live action horror show. It's kind of funny that a lower budget cartoon has managed to be more authentic, original and well written all at the same time - it manages to pull off making fun of the old franchise while also being nostalgic about it. For any true star trek fans, the only real new star trek show is lower decks imo.

I was pleasantly surprised by the old Star Trek: The Animated Series

I think it was targeted at kids, but they had an all-star series of writers.

The repeating music reused in every episode just flashed in my head.

I would say the reverse, while agreeing with most of what you wrote.

It pulls off making fun of the old franchise while also being nostalgic about it.

But it’s simplistic with characters who are so dumb and childish that there’s no Star Trek in Lower Decks either.

Not a single character on the show is an adult. They’re all edgy and nerdy tweens vying for influence in the middle school yearbook club… in adult bodies. This includes the captain and bridge crew.

Lower Decks would be a phenomenal Star Trek if they would mentally age all the characters by 10 ~ 20 years, especially the captain, XO, security officer and every alien.

> But it’s simplistic with characters who are so dumb and childish that there’s no Star Trek in Lower Decks either.

Well... i wouldn't completely disagree, but it's a cartoon comedy so it seems fitting, the characters might be dumb and simplistic but they make fun of themselves; unlike Discovery where the characters are also dumb and simplistic yet pretentious and serious with terrible acting making it unbearable.

Lower Decks might be an excellent cartoon comedy by some measures, but it's not very good Star Trek for the same reasons.

The whole thing with Star Trek is competent "culturally evolved" professionals exploring the universe and representing the best of us.

There's no way any Starfleet character from Lower Decks could have made it through the academy entrance exam or psych eval from TNG. They're not competent and they're driven by childishness, which is what makes the show a comedy and not good Star Trek.

> Speaking of star trek, I'd highly recommend "lower decks" to anyone who is repulsed by the latest live action horror show.

I wouldn't. I tried, not once, not twice, but three times to watch it. The speech from all characters is just way to fast for me to understand.

I actually reinstalled Far Cry 2 (which was widely lambasted for speech being too fast) to compare, and the speech in lower decks is a lot faster than Far Cry 2.

As a Star Trek fan I found Lower Decks to be one of the worst of the bunch. It seemed targeted at kids/teenagers though so I reserved judgement. To each his own.

Lower decks is okayish in the sense that it can only be watched if you enjoy (or tolerate, for that matter) high school humor. I'm regularly meeting with friends, we currently watch Voyager and sometimes shove in an episode of lower decks here and there when it's getting late. It's alienating everyone enough to take a long break afterwards. The characters are all hyperactive and constantly screaming, including the senior officers, most episodes feature or are about shit, piss or sex in some way. It's good in the sense that it doesn't throw away everything you like about the older series and try to ruin them retroacticely like Picard did. That doesn't make it a good series though.

You should watch Strange New Worlds. Has so much of ToS in it.

Strange New Worlds is very good. The story arc about the medical officer who kept his daughter in the transporter buffer was awesome and reminded me of TnG while Gene Roddenberry was still around.

And that's "fine", right? I mean it's not for me, because I really like The Lord of the Rings, but then nobody's holding a gun to my head to watch it.

As I've gotten older, I've gotten more and more okay with shrugging and accepting that most things are not made for me anymore. What I think is only going to result in fruitless frustration, is thinking "this _should_ be made for me, because I do like X".

There's an argument to be made that quality in the arts has been declining as a result of — in part — dumbing down, or trying to appeal to the most people, based on current social norms, but I feel that's unrelated and not behind why people get so worked up with these things.

Tolkien took Norse mythology and completely butchered it - for example Gandalf is a dwarf in Norse mythology.

I guess that would make Tolkien "exploitation for financial gain"?

> I guess that would make Tolkien "exploitation for financial gain"?

He didn't write "Lord of Thor's Rings" trilogy

He used sources to create his OWN unique setting. He wasn't claiming his books to be Bible 2 or Koran prequels.

That's the difference.

I'm unsure what distinction you make here. Are you saying it would be totally fine if Amazon used Middle Earth, Elrond, Galadriel, Sauron etc. for a story as long as they didn't call it a prequel to Lord of the Rings?

There is no Thor, Odin nor any other character in lotr, there is no direct referencing to any other works (ie talking wholesale of anything) afaik.

Tolkien used a some of lesser character from norse mythology and completely rewrote its origin, purpose and made him central player in his story.

I think that's completely comparable to lets say: making movie about evil galactic empire, i mean dictatorship with its leader in black costume that has telepathic powers and laser sword... /s

Yes nobody will notice.

There is difference between inspiration, homage, and just ripping off a setting with minimal effort.

Here is an article on lotr influences

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._R._R._Tolkien%27s_influence...

tell me how is that comparable to

> Amazon used Middle Earth, Elrond, Galadriel, Sauron etc. for a story as long as they didn't call it a prequel to Lord of the Rings?

If Amazon writers want to tell their story about their issues the way they want it go ahead. There are plenty of original shows, and plenty more would be even better.

Tolkien wrote a straight-up retelling of the Kullervo cycle from Kalevala though.

I don't see any relevance,

so tolkien wrote something that is an expansion of a source text is your point that... what exactly are you implicating?

> ...once they have diverged from the original creator’s vision and mythology, it’s simply exploitation for financial gain.

Must things always stay the same? Can't some popular stories grow and evolve beyond one, albeit original, author's imagination?

As stories cross generations I think it's kind of awesome when each can add some flavor to the retelling or expansion of the tale.

I have a special adoration for Star Wars yet am happy to see it getting more production, even if it must be at the hand of Disney.

The problem is, what typically happens is an author writes an original story and then it's "extended" by filming a completely unrelated off the shelf plot with some of the names changed and lore added. If something isn't a Hollywood hero's journey it's going to be one now. Scouring of the Shire would've been a lot more original than any new material we're getting here.

Though American TV has improved a lot since the time they had directors of making sure none of the protagonists were women.

I sense the displeasure is due to a perception, which may well be correct, that certain cultural artifacts are recycled as a platform for propagating socio-political agendas. Emasculation and milk toast male characters, for example, seem to be de rigueur these days.

> Can't some popular stories grow and evolve ..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfram_von_Eschenbach#Parziva...

One of my all time favorite European works is Wolfram von Eschenbach's Parzival. He wasn't the original author of the legend of Percival, and there were other versions after him. It evolved, but that process took centuries and imo was an organic development.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percival#Perceval

So I think the generally unspoken issue is who is doing the 'growing and evolving' (here: Corporations) and how are they evolving dearly beloved cultural works. Wolfram for example changed some bits and even inserted a short (rather amusing) interlude to vent his frustrations with women, but we can be certain there wasn't a committee with a social agenda sponsoring him to write that.

So, genuine development is definitely OK. At least in my book.

[pdf] https://ia800908.us.archive.org/24/items/Parzival/Parzival.p...

"If there is anyone who praises women better than I, I will surely not be the one to hold it against him..."

(See page 117 of the pdf to hear out this knight's complaints.)

> ...Can't some popular stories grow and evolve beyond one, albeit original, author's imagination?

Of course they can, but it's also the case that Tolkien was extremely defensive against divergent interpretations of his work, and he has a large fan-base with the same attitude.

If he wanted to be so defensive of his work, he shouldn't have sold it (or left it to his descendants to sell).

You can't have it both ways, if I sell my startup to Google I can't then berate them for deviating from my vision and making it too corporate.

> if I sell my startup to Google I can't then berate them for deviating from my vision and making it too corporate.

I'm pretty sure can. Maybe they could gag you with a contract during the sale, but I am certain that fans of your original business are well within their rights to criticize what Google later does with it. Your decision to sell something doesn't oblige others to respect what the new owner does with it.

I'm not arguing for any particular position, just trying to explain the motivation of some Tolkien fans.

Unfortunately, with most new productions it’s clear that the new folks don’t understand the story or characters they’re supposed to be extending. Or rather, they don’t care to and want to tell their own. That would be fine if they just chose a new name.

> Can't some popular stories grow and evolve beyond one, albeit original, author's imagination?

Sure, it's simple. Name it differently when you already plan to stray from the author's vision and as a bonus people will rate it more independently from the original (though that also means no free marketing by riding on a known brand).

They can, but then change the name and any implication that it is somehow more of what we got before (Lord of the Rings). Or clearly state it is only based on it, but has actually nothing to do with the original work, only draws inspiration from it.

This is not the case.

Here the directors / whoever just think they can do better than Tolkien (and that's fine) but then they appropriate themselves with everything he did, including claiming it's his work, but that they "improved" or "modernized".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com