Will LOTR earn respect for fantasy? (long)

[Tom Beck]

Does the success of LOTR bode well for future fantasy projects? Or was  
it based, at least in part, on the legendary status of the Tolkien  
books? Would some other adaptation fare as well, regardless of quality?  
For example, would a movie based on Guy Gavriel Kay’s masterpiece  
Tigana, even if accomplished on the scale of LOTR, with as good a cast,  
as fine an attention to detail, similar scope and beauty, be received  
with the same serious respect, or would it be relegated to the ghetto  
of escapist drivel?

What distinguishes those fantasy projects that are taken seriously from  
those that aren’t? Why is Buffy able to make at least a bit of a  
mainstream breakthrough while Stargate SG-1 remains a genre show? Why  
did LOTR get full props while The Empire Strikes Back didn’t? Even  
mighty Star Trek is, at best, fondly indulged as a sort of beloved  
childhood plaything instead of truly welcomed into full adult status.

I’m asking the question, I don’t have any answers. I’ve heard the  
theory that for a genre show to develop some breakout potential, it  
helps to be have a recognizable setting; e.g., Buffy brings horror to  
otherwise bland suburbia. But although the Shire resembles the pacific  
English countryside, that’s as far as Middle Earth goes in bearing any  
similarity to the surroundings of most of the people who have flocked  
to see the movies; so that theory is only so useful in explaining the  
success of Peter Jackson’s trio of films, and therefore offers us  
little on which to base predictions of what success future genre  
productions can expect.

Another suggested key to mass appeal is a character with whom the  
audience can identify, likewise making the strange and weird more  
palatable to those for whom fantasy is usually too fantastical to waste  
their time on. For example, the Harry Potter books and film adaptations  
present a suburban child thrust into the wizarding world, giving  
readers and viewers access to that thrilling and chilling demimonde  
through Harry’s eyes. But again, the characters in LOTR are not  
particularly familiar to us; even Sam, closest thing there is to a  
surrogate for the reader/viewer, is not really the protagonist in quite  
the same way that Harry is.

When asked what I would like to see a movie made of, I always answer,  
John Varley’s great, underrated novel Titan. Hollywood technical  
wizardry has reached the point that realizing Varley’s imaginative  
creatures from that book (Titanides, Blimps, Angels, Smilers, etc.)  
would be relatively easy. The adult themes of the book might be too  
much for some viewers, especially those so unnerved by Janet Jackson’s  
not even totally bare breast, and the story would no doubt have to be  
simplified in order to bring it to the screen in less than 3 hours  
(although LOTR has shown that audiences will tolerate or even relish a  
lengthily told tale when the tale merits the length). But let’s say  
someone had the vision and guts to bring Titan to the big screen with  
all the vitality and spirit that Peter Jackson had in realizing  
Tolkien’s works. Would it have a chance of succeeding even half as  
well? Or a quarter?

What I am asking is, did the phenomenal success of LOTR presage a sea  
change in the way fantasy is perceived by the general public (including  
the critics), or was it a one-off, difficult if not impossible to  
repeat, even by the finest in filmed art? Was Tolkien, as much as Peter  
Jackson, responsible for the fact that these 3 magnificent films were,  
for once (or thrice) not relegated to the proverbial parents’ basement,  
as it were? Hard to say. Doubtless many millions who have seen the  
movies had not read the books beforehand (although hopefully many of  
them have since at least picked the novels up). But the existence of  
the books and their near legendary status probably persuaded some  
moviegoers who would otherwise eschew “mere” fantasy, to give it a try.  
There is comfort in a “brand” name, after all. And the books’ literary  
reputation probably induced at least some critics to treat the films  
more seriously than they normally do for anything given the dreaded and  
infantilizing label of “genre.”

Again, it is hard to think of any potential project that would have the  
same advantages. This is not to demean the quality and filmability of  
other properties. Tigana would make a wonderful movie, in the right  
hands, and so would Titan, Startide Rising, The Moon is a Harsh  
Mistress, Ringworld, His Dark Materials, Perdido Street Station, and  
any number of others. In the aftermath of LOTR, it is not fantasy to  
imagine that at least some genre projects will get the green light in  
Hollywood, and that some “prestige” filmmakers will be tempted to give  
them a go (although let them at least be true fans of what they are  
attempting; Ang Lee, this means please let someone else helm the next  
comic book adaptation).

There have been genre booms in the past-almost inevitably, to be  
followed by “mass extinctions.” This is not to say that fantasy will  
disappear-but will it be permitted to stay up late with the grownups,  
or will it be sent to bed early and leave the adults to their more  
sophisticated conversation? Lord of the Rings has broken through,  
gloriously, and well-deserved. Will anyone else be allowed to follow,  
or did the hopes of fantasy fans for the respect we think we have  
earned melt away with the demise of the One Ring?

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
----------

Tom Beck

my LiveJournal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/tomfodw/

"I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never thought I'd  
see the last." - Dr. Jerry Pournelle

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
----------
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l