Blatant LoTR Copy-Cats

[ItalianLegolas]

Okay, in school my class had to watch "The Wizard of Oz", and me and my fellow LoTR nerds noticed some very obvious very much alike/stolen portions of the movie that were very much like the LoTR books! One such example is the "object of power", in the Wizard of Oz, the ruby slippers, in LoTR, the ring. Another one, would be a a huge gate where all the witches minions(which are orc look-alikes) march through, you guessed it, an enormous BLACK GATE, very much like the one that is the entrance to Mordor! My final such copy-cat is the appearance of short people, in the Wizard of Oz, the munchkins, in LoTR, the Hobbits!

I guess my point is, has anyone else noticed such LoTR look-alikes, or am i the only one?

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Dumbledore and Gandalf. They are both "wizards" and very wise and trusted.

[Elemmírë]

Gandalf and Obi-wan Kenobi...

There are a lot, many more I can't think of right now, but you can't always put it down to copy-cats. Some of these things are simply recurrent themes that not even Tolkien created, and I'm not about to accuse him of copying from Norse mythology or Christian theology... :D

[Aragorn]

Everyone copied from Tolkien. LotR is pretty much the ultimate fantasy story, so you'll see 'coincidences' in many popular movies/books/etc.

[Count Comfect]

I'd say most of those are just common themes... especially since the Wizard of Oz predates Tolkien.

[Nurvingiel]

I've got a real LotR copycat for ya. I can't believe someone hasn't said it already!

The Sword of Shannarah, by J.R.- I mean Terry Brooks.

I love this book, and Terry Brooks himself said later that it was a total LotR rip off (paraphrase).

Shae Ohmsford - Frodo
Flick Ohmsford - Sam
Jerle Shannarah - Gil-galad
Allanon - Gandalf
The King of Silver River - Elrond
The Skullbearers - the Nazgul

It's been ages since I read this, but I bet you could parallel pretty much anything.

:cool:

[Elvengirl]

That book is awesome Nurv! One of my favorites besides LotR, of course! :D

Another trilogy that is a complete rip-off, but again some of the BEST books I have ever read, is The Iron Tower Trilogy by Dennis McKiernan.
In soo many ways it's almost identical. He even openly admits it. But I loved it and I'd recommend it to anyone.

Tolkien was the first to really write a successful fantasy series, so everyone seems to use him as their inspiration. I don't really mind, as long as the book is well written and hard to put down and I still acknowledge Tolkien as the ultimate fantasy writer :)

[jerseydevil]

Okay, in school my class had to watch "The Wizard of Oz", and me and my fellow LoTR nerds noticed some very obvious very much alike/stolen portions of the movie that were very much like the LoTR books! One such example is the "object of power", in the Wizard of Oz, the ruby slippers, in LoTR, the ring. Another one, would be a a huge gate where all the witches minions(which are orc look-alikes) march through, you guessed it, an enormous BLACK GATE, very much like the one that is the entrance to Mordor! My final such copy-cat is the appearance of short people, in the Wizard of Oz, the munchkins, in LoTR, the Hobbits!

I guess my point is, has anyone else noticed such LoTR look-alikes, or am i the only one?
If you study the meaning of the Wizard of Oz - you will notice that there is nothing in common with Tolkien. However - there are many scenes that jackson did that remind me of the Wizard of Oz. if anything - Jackson took from the Wizard of Oz movies. I have said before - that at the black gate - when Frodo, Sam and Gollum are there - it looks like the Scarcrow, Tin Man and Lion. I was just waiting for "oh ee oh - oh oh" to be chanted. :rolleyes:

And as Count Confect states - the Wizard of Oz was written before Tolkien wrote the Hobbit or Lord of the Rings.

[edit]
For those who want to know the meanings behind the Wizard of Oz -

Muchkins - immigrants
Witch of the East - businessmen who took advantage of the immigrants
yellow brick road - gold standard
ruby slippers (in the movie) - I believe silver in the book - the silver standard
Emerald city - washington
witch of the west - nature (tornados and the causes of the dustbowl)

My recollection may be rusty on some of them though. But that is a general idea behind the meaning of wizard of oz.

[Elvengirl]

Hmm..interesting JD. I never noticed the Wizard being anything like Jackson's films, but know you've mentioned it, that scene is kind of similar.

[jerseydevil]

Hmm..interesting JD. I never noticed the Wizard being anything like Jackson's films, but know you've mentioned it, that scene is kind of similar.
I've mentioned several scenes in the movie forum - such as when Saruman and the orc are in orthanc (Fellowship of the Ring). It looks very similar to when the witch is telling the flying monkey to go after dorothy.

[Embladyne]

About copycats....if it can be pulled off, the retelling of a good story is a commendable accomplishment.
That said, I generally appreciate stories that more influnced by other works rather than rehashed. I do read my share of doujinshi and fanfics...and have contemplated authoring several (may they never see the light of day!)

But, if we are going to accuse others of "copying Tolkien" first we must know that everything he wrote was *original*. And it wasn't. In fact, that's why I like his work so much. It takes a great deal of the mythology that has always fascinated me, and puts it into the context of Middle Earth. I'm not saying that Tolkien didn't have original ideas. He most certainly did. Its is his integration of the world mythos with his own that make his work of Middle Earth such an epic accomplishment. And sadly, as much as I love other authors, none has quite felt as inspired as our dear Tolkien. :)

A couple of the belief systems Tolkien drew from (as Elemmire noted):
Catholism
Norse mythology (the Eddas)
(feel free to add more)

Actually, the source of Tolkien's inspiration is one of my favorite topics to discuss!! :)

[Elemmírë]

I've got a real LotR copycat for ya. I can't believe someone hasn't said it already!

The Sword of Shannarah, by J.R.- I mean Terry Brooks.

I love this book, and Terry Brooks himself said later that it was a total LotR rip off (paraphrase).

I can't believe I forgot it... :o

I love that book too, Nurvs... Probably because it is so much like LotR. ;)

It's more than just the characters, if you read the book side by side with LotR, the plot is almost identical. It's hilarious.

If you study the meaning of the Wizard of Oz - you will notice that there is nothing in common with Tolkien. However - there are many scenes that jackson did that remind me of the Wizard of Oz. if anything - Jackson took from the Wizard of Oz movies. I have said before - that at the black gate - when Frodo, Sam and Gollum are there - it looks like the Scarcrow, Tin Man and Lion. I was just waiting for "oh ee oh - oh oh" to be chanted. :rolleyes:

You sure know how to ruin the movie for me, JD... I'm never going to be able to watch that part of it again without trying desperately not to burst out laughing... :rolleyes: :p

I liked your list, btw. And yes, the shoes were silver in the book.

About copycats....if it can be pulled off, the retelling of a good story is a commendable accomplishment.

Such as the Sword of Shannara. :)



[edited] btw... any admins out there? Should this be in GM?

[BeardofPants]

Everyone copied from Tolkien. LotR is pretty much the ultimate fantasy story, so you'll see 'coincidences' in many popular movies/books/etc.

As Emblayne stated, Tolkien was not soley the originator of the fantasy genre, and his work bears the mark of many. Influences in his work derive from many other OLDER sources such as Eddas, Beowulf, etc. And remember, his work was undoubtedly inspired by his interest in etymology.

I was just waiting for "oh ee oh - oh oh" to be chanted. :rolleyes:

Isn't that a bastardisation of "all we did, we did for her"?

[jerseydevil]

As Emblayne stated, Tolkien was not soley the originator of the fantasy genre, and his work bears the mark of many. Influences in his work derive from many other OLDER sources such as Eddas, Beowulf, etc. And remember, his work was undoubtedly inspired by his interest in etymology.

Yes - which has been argued when it comes to Harry Potter - like Tolkien - Rowlings uses many things from various mythologies.

Isn't that a bastardisation of "all we did, we did for her"?
I guess so. Is that what they're say? I don't know really what they are saying - it just sounds like a chant to me. Maybe I should watch it again and listen to it closely.

[Bombadillo]

Everyone copied from Tolkien. LotR is pretty much the ultimate fantasy story, so you'll see 'coincidences' in many popular movies/books/etc.Hence my sig. Tolkien is the god of fantasy. He created the fantasy genre, perfected it, made it so deep and detailed, and set all the guidelines for it. Everyone else in the fantasy genre has to pretty much follow him, and as of yet none have been able to come off as more timeless and awesome. His work is so powerful that people just absorb it and later that comes out in their own work, blatantly. Because he rocks. Rarely do people 'copy' him intentionally, but it's impossible not to, IMO.

[jerseydevil]

You sure know how to ruin the movie for me, JD... I'm never going to be able to watch that part of it again without trying desperately not to burst out laughing... :rolleyes: :p

No problem - it's good to laugh at jackson's hack movies. :p

I liked your list, btw. And yes, the shoes were silver in the book.

I thought they were. We studied Wizard of Oz in American history class when I was in high school.

[Elemmírë]

I guess so. Is that what they're say? I don't know really what they are saying - it just sounds like a chant to me. Maybe I should watch it again and listen to it closely.

You never know... people were wandering down my dorm's hallway one night chanting the name of the college over and over... and it sounded like that "oh ee oh, oh oh"... I was thinking, "who's been watching too much OZ?" I'm lucky I didn't get a flashback to a LotR scene too... that would have seemed very bizarre at the time... :D

Hence my sig. Tolkien is the god of fantasy. He created the fantasy genre, perfected it, made it so deep and detailed, and set all the guidelines for it.

Fantasy, I disagree.
Modern fantasy, almost certainly. :)

No problem - it's good to laugh at jackson's hack movies.

You're going to make me hate them yet. :mad:

Next time my friends want to watch LotR in my room... I'm going to be kicked out for too much complaining! :D

[Embladyne]

I have a tendancy to just automatically hate movies based upon books until I've seen them and formed my own opinions....which usually end up with despising them...so it's all good. Although, good technique and beautiful photography I can still appreciate even when the story is worthless.

Hence my sig. Tolkien is the god of fantasy. He created the fantasy genre, perfected it, made it so deep and detailed, and set all the guidelines for it.
I too agree with El that Tokien did not create fantasy perse, but had a tremendous hand in influencing it's future direction, for which I am grateful.
Not Modern fantasy anymore, it's Postmodern....or, Post-postmodern.... ;)

You never know... people were wandering down my dorm's hallway one night chanting the name of the college over and over... and it sounded like that "oh ee oh, oh oh"... I was thinking, "who's been watching too much OZ?"
:D I never thought about how similar they do sound....hmmm...though at college, you never know what's going to happen next.

Next time my friends want to watch LotR in my room... I'm going to be kicked out for too much complaining! :D
I'll complain right along with you...you heard me the other night, although for other reasons. ;) :p

[jerseydevil]

You're going to make me hate them yet. :mad:

Well then - all I can say is one down, and another success story for me opening up someone's eyes. :D

Next time my friends want to watch LotR in my room... I'm going to be kicked out for too much complaining! :D
See you will start complaining to them and pointing all these cliched hollywood hack things jackson resorted to in his movies - and then they will hate them and they will tell people and so on and so on and so on. :)

[Nurvingiel]

I have said before - that at the black gate - when Frodo, Sam and Gollum are there - it looks like the Scarcrow, Tin Man and Lion. I was just waiting for "oh ee oh - oh oh" to be chanted. :rolleyes:
Lol! :D Same as Elvengirl, I'm going to have trouble not laughing there. But you can't take the love out of my love-hate relationship. :p

Anyway, I don't think there are any actual blatant LotR copycats. I think Brooks was more heavily influenced by Tolkien and later realized he inadvertently copied the works. Brook's later novels in the series (about Shannarah) are much more independent.

Harry Potter is definitely not an LotR copycat, though it does seem to get called that a lot. Two similar (yet very unalike) wizards does not a copycat make.

[Attalus]

I have never read any more Terry Brooks books after The Sword of Shannara. He might at least put a couple of in-jokes in it to indicate that he was plaigarising Tolkien. :mad:

[Elemmírë]

Ah, good. So the thread was moved. :)

I'll complain right along with you...

You already did. :p You've officially been banned from watching LotR in the future...;) (Not by me, btw)

Well then - all I can say is one down, and another success story for me opening up someone's eyes. :D

See you will start complaining to them and pointing all these cliched hollywood hack things jackson resorted to in his movies - and then they will hate them and they will tell people and so on and so on and so on. :)

So that's your plan. :evil:

And then I will go watch it with the quasi-Legolas-fangirls down the hallway and we'll see if I make it back to the Moot alive... ;)

I have never read any more Terry Brooks books after The Sword of Shannara. He might at least put a couple of in-jokes in it to indicate that he was plaigarising Tolkien. :mad:

I agree with Nurvs that he probably didn't realise he was copying so much until after the fact. I was lucky in that I had not read LotR in a while when I picked up Sword of Shannara... and I had stupidly read about four other Brooks books first... so I didn't really see all the... well, connections is an understatement ;)... at first. :)

[BeardofPants]

Hence my sig. Tolkien is the god of fantasy. He created the fantasy genre, perfected it, made it so deep and detailed, and set all the guidelines for it.

That is grossly unfair to Tolkien's precedents. He in no way pulled his work out of thin air. His work was built upon EXISTING stepping stones. Granted, his STYLE of fantasy has had huge implications for the fantasy genre today, but the genre in and of itself ALREADY existed.


I too agree with El that Tokien did not create fantasy perse, but had a tremendous hand in influencing it's future direction, for which I am grateful.
Not Modern fantasy anymore, it's Postmodern....or, Post-postmodern.... ;)


What has changed about the fantasy genre that shifts it from modernity exactly? It still bears the characteristics of a traditional 'modern' novel, so I don't know what the hell you're yapping on about here. :confused:

[Attalus]

I agree, BoP, and was going to post to that effect except I was being hurried. Shakespeare drew extensively on earlier sources, as JRRT himself noted in "On Fairy-Stories," to the effect that Hamlet is not the same as Aylmon's story in his Brut. He goes on to liken the creation of a fairy story, of which the LotR is inarguably one, to the making of soup: a bone from there, veggies from here and there, and stock from elsewhere, to make something entirely different from, but related to, these sources. I certainly have no quarrel with that, but outright piracy is something else, again.

[Nurvingiel]

I have never read any more Terry Brooks books after The Sword of Shannara. He might at least put a couple of in-jokes in it to indicate that he was plaigarising Tolkien. :mad:
Upon reflection, I now regard the Skull Kingdom and the Skullbears as a massive in-joke. :D I don't think he did it on purpose though (the joke and the ripping off).

[Embladyne]

What has changed about the fantasy genre that shifts it from modernity exactly? It still bears the characteristics of a traditional 'modern' novel, so I don't know what the hell you're yapping on about here. :confused:

I apologize....I was just poking fun at all the art history classes I've taken (and I enjoy taking.) And people who say that after certain world events (of which there are so many) there can be no art made purely for entertainment and enjoyment. Art always must have some further purpose. With which I very much disagree.
However, there is recent fantasy that falls into this category of writing. (Writing with a purpose beyond just trying to tell a good story, and instead trying to sell an idealogy or analyze real, recent historical events. Yes, this is a highly disputable region of literature.) I'll see if I can take time away from school to go rumage up a list of what I think qualifies.
A lot of this literature, in my opinion just plain sucks beacuse the stories suck. There are some, though, that although I dislike being sold to blatantly, are really great books.

El...tell me, who exactly is it that has banned me from watching Lotr? (so I can hunt them down and force them to read horrible fanfics!!!) :D :D

[Elemmírë]

What has changed about the fantasy genre that shifts it from modernity exactly? It still bears the characteristics of a traditional 'modern' novel, so I don't know what the hell you're yapping on about here. :confused:

Language, Boppy! Language! :p


And people who say that after certain world events (of which there are so many) there can be no art made purely for entertainment and enjoyment. Art always must have some further purpose. With which I very much disagree.


Em, I don't know if I wholely agree with you here. After an important event occurs, how can an artist or writer not even unconsciously incorporate it into his/her work? Though... I don't understand the distinction between modern and post-modern...

Isn't everything in the here and now modern? Maybe what was once considered modern should be called something else in such a case...

Though I don't see how Tolkien could be considered "post-modern" in anycase. But since that was just a rant, on your part and mine, I'll let it go.

[BeardofPants]

However, there is recent fantasy that falls into this category of writing. (Writing with a purpose beyond just trying to tell a good story, and instead trying to sell an idealogy or analyze real, recent historical events....

What makes this post-modern, exactly? Postmodernism, as I'm sure you well know, is a reactionary movement against modernism. I don't doubt that there is what some would consider 'post-modern fantasy' literature, but I take umbrage at the notion that selling an ideology is somehow a new concept, applicable only to post-modernist work!

[Embladyne]

Em, I don't know if I wholely agree with you here. After an important event occurs, how can an artist or writer not even unconsciously incorporate it into his/her work? Though... I don't understand the distinction between modern and post-modern...

Isn't everything in the here and now modern? Maybe what was once considered modern should be called something else in such a case...

Though I don't see how Tolkien could be considered "post-modern" in anycase. But since that was just a rant, on your part and mine, I'll let it go. :)

Oh, I'll clarify. I do not consider Tolkien to be post modern, no. If that's what it sounded like I was saying, excuse my lack of writing ability. I agree with you that art history terms are confusing, though. Let's leave them to their own, as I only meant that part as a jest, and get to the theories that I found more interesting. I guess a better term (than "modern") to use for today's authors is "contemporary."

Postmodern art tries to deal with the tragedy in the world. Consiously. This is a great idea, but I don't think it should have precedence over story. (There is postmodern art I enjoy and appreciate, mainly music and film.) The answer to this kind of art, though, I dislike more. In it's attempt to make grand and great things that rebuild or replace what has been lost, it easily slides down the path of simplistic propaganda.
All of this is my opinion on these art forms. My favorite way to decide whether or not I like a particular something, is still to try it out myself.

El, thanks for calling me on that. I still don't think I've written very well what I mean.

I don't doubt that there is what some would consider 'post-modern fantasy' literature, but I take umbrage at the notion that selling an ideology is somehow a new concept, applicable only to post-modernist work!

I did not mean to claim that *only* postmodern work sold ideologies. :)
Only that I like people to be subtle when they do sell. All work is obviously going to have some kind of ideological background, no matter who the artist is. My general statements allowed many things to fall through the cracks. And I don't intend to dis postmodern art, or any larger genre of art for that matter. What I am worried about is when people claim to speak for everyone about the direction in which art MUST go. Or claim that their art is the only REAL art around. (I'm not saying that postmodern art does this, just individual artists across the centuries.) That is a personal thing. Just like my dislike of one book, and rabid fascination with another. :D Since life is a highly individualized endeavour, so too should be the art a person creates.
Thanx to you too, for forcing me to be clearer, I hope. :D

[Elemmírë]

It doesn't matter.

It's all Off Topic anyway. :p

How about this to try to drag us back On Topic: Why the word "copying"?

Why are people sometimes so angry about the idea that someone is always trying to "copy" Tolkien? (This thread, for example :) ) I know there are a lot of people who think that Harry Potter is a cheap rip-off (I don't see it, personally).

I haven't heard anyone get angry about Tolkien taking influence from Christianity or mythology? Why is it that when Tolkien's work clearly parallels theology or myths and legends, it is considered "influence" and "inspiration," yet someone who draws that same "inspiration" from Tolkien is immediately accused of copying?

[Embladyne]

Because religion is cool, man! :cool:
Really though, I do agree with you on the copying thing. I think we should consider those who "copy" Tolkien as my parents always told me to think about my younger siblings "copying" me. "It's a compliment!"
Then again...copyright laws. :eek: Don't I wish I owned those to my lifestyle, when my parents gave me that line!
But, I think that people maybe don't mind authors using religious stories, because those are stories of a culture, and collectively owned, while in our society, books are works of intellect, and....stuff.... and individually owned, and the author is deserving of credit because of their great accomplishments. Personally, if I ever wrote a novel, the dedication would be longer than the actually book because of all the people I would have to thank, and apologize for *almost* plagerizing. :D

[Elemmírë]

But what can truly be considered original?

Is there anything in Tolkien's work that does not closely resemble something seen before? Surely he put everything together somewhat differently than anything else... But so most people we've accused of plagiarising him...

With the exception of Brooks, of course. :p

[Attalus]

Certainly, I do not object to people using the age-old conventions of fantastic literature (some go back to Gilgamesh). What I dislike about The Sword of Shannara is that it blatantly copies the storyline of the LotR so much that every page causes me to think, "He's Legolas!" or something else. Obviously, this is a highly individual matter. David Eddings does much the same thing, but not in regard to Tolkien. The man actually copies himself. :eek:

[Olmer]

Why is it that when Tolkien's work clearly parallels theology or myths and legends, it is considered "influence" and "inspiration," yet someone who draws that same "inspiration" from Tolkien is immediately accused of copying?
On this exellent question is only one answer. GREED, my man.
Tolkien Estate is making a lot of money on The Professor's work. And while this "goose" continue to produce golden eggs, it will be an army of well-payed lawyers which with an appliance of different interpretation of the law will help to squeeze out on the whole Tolkien's ideas as much money, as it can be possible.
In mean time a lot of extraodinary written work, inspired by Tolkien, will be forewer lost for readers. Pity.

[Attalus]

Alas, Olmer is right. The quashing of the Fall of Gondolin book, I forget the title, proves once again that Christopher is not at all one with his father's ideal of inspiring otheres.

[ItalianLegolas]

it does kind of stink that if Tolkien was living today we could have tons more LoTR books, but then again there would be almost no need for the Entmoot because all these questions would be answered :rolleyes:

[Olmer]

it does kind of stink that if Tolkien was living today we could have tons more LoTR books,
Probably, not. He abandoned the idea of the story's continuation through the Forth Age.

[Count Comfect]

Yes, but people showing up at your door growling "publish more" and brandishing imitation Middle Earth swords can be quite convincing :p

Topic?

I think the greatest change of Tolkien as compared to most of his predecessors/successors is the degree to which his books are setting-driven rather than plot- or character-driven. That is to say, it's about Middle Earth, not so much about the Ring, or about Aragorn/Gandalf/Frodo/etc., whereas much of the rest of fantasy is more interested in either plots or characters.

[Elemmírë]

it does kind of stink that if Tolkien was living today we could have tons more LoTR books, but then again there would be almost no need for the Entmoot because all these questions would be answered :rolleyes:

Not all the questions would be answered, :p... And I'm sure some of us would still debate and discuss the answers we got...

...His books are setting-driven rather than plot- or character-driven. That is to say, it's about Middle Earth...

two words: The Silmarillion.

I definitely agree... I wonder how much of that is due to his mythological inspirations. For me the difference between Tolkien and other fantasies has been that ME seems like genuine mythology rather than just a story. It sometimes feels frighteningly real for that reason... (I'm not crazy, btw, and I'm not searching for Valinor.... yet :evil: )

I suppose this comes out of it being so setting-driven.

[Pytt]

I agree Ellie. Tolkiens world is much more real in a way. he has made his own language, for one thing. I thing it has to do with what Ellie says. In some way ME is more complex and intriguing than other fantasy worlds.

Btw, shall we search for Valinor togheter Ellie? ;)

[Elemmírë]

Lennuvanyë mai lennuvalyë,
Nai elmë hiruvas.

I will go if you will go,
Perhaps we will find it.

I'm ready when you are, Pytt.
See... I'm even practising my Quenya...
Though... I doubt it's actually understandable at this point... :o

[ItalianLegolas]

his world is definitly more convincing then others, and better too

[Khamûl]

Isn't that a bastardisation of "all we did, we did for her"?

Actually, I believe it's "All we owe, we owe her" which comes out sounding like "oh-we-oh oh-wee-oh". I don't remember where I heard that, but I think it's right.

And The Sword of Shannara is the most blatant rip-off of Tolkien I've ever read. It's also the only book by Terry Brooks I've ever read. Just for fun, the Book-A-Minute version of The Sword of Shannara, ultra-condensed by Samuel Stoddard and David J. Parker:


Allanon -- Shea Ohmsford, you're the long lost heir to a royal magic throne kingship dynasty bloodline. Also, the world will die unless you can save it.

Shea Ohmsford -- What do I do?

Allanon -- I'm not telling.

Shea Ohmsford -- Oh, Allanon! You're so reticent!

(Then a plot happens.)

The Warlock Lord -- ROAR. I WILL KILL YOU.

Shea Ohmsford -- Truth.

The Warlock Lord -- GASP. (dies)


THE END
:D

[Elvengirl]

:D but that plot is sooo cool :cool: Terry Brooks did have some origional concepts even if some of the basic story lines are the same or similar.

If you think The Sword is the most blatant rip off, read the Iron Tower Trilogy by Dennis McKiernan,then see if your opinion still stands. :)

[Beor]

I am just going to jump into this serious discussion to throw it off a little bit, but I think that Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker is alot like Feanor, not that he is a copycat. Thing is that that particular charactor is quite common in many many stories, and has been for a long time. same with many themes and whatnot. The Lord of the Rings is about a quest, so is a lot of other stories. I try to write some fantasy too, and it is really hard to get a fresh idea out of anything for me with such a monster-sized behemoth of a story pulsing through my brain. I end up calling the ultimate bad-guy Melkor and saying I will change it later, it is just easier that way. My Humanities teacher in School said that nothing is really new, it is just a different version of something else made before, whether on purpose, or by accident. I think that he was for the most part correct (though I still think that new stuff can come out, and I am going to do it dammit!).

[Pytt]

Lennuvanyë mai lennuvalyë,
Nai elmë hiruvas.

I will go if you will go,
Perhaps we will find it.

I'm ready when you are, Pytt.
See... I'm even practising my Quenya...
Though... I doubt it's actually understandable at this point... :o

Good, we might need a interpreter if, WHEN, we find it :D and I can nothing, so it all depends on you :)

[Elemmírë]

I try to write some fantasy too, and it is really hard to get a fresh idea out of anything for me with such a monster-sized behemoth of a story pulsing through my brain. I end up calling the ultimate bad-guy Melkor and saying I will change it later, it is just easier that way.

Haha! :D

I know what you mean though... whatever you do, your copying Tolkien. Use Elves and beware... never mind that they're in Scandinavian mythology too... :rolleyes:

My Humanities teacher in School said that nothing is really new, it is just a different version of something else made before, whether on purpose, or by accident. I think that he was for the most part correct (though I still think that new stuff can come out, and I am going to do it dammit!).

Hm. I think that holds some merit, though... if nothing is really new but based on something else... what was the first one based on...?

:eek:

Good, we might need a interpreter if, WHEN, we find it :D and I can nothing, so it all depends on you :)

Nothing's new. It's WHEN, Pytt, WHEN. ;)

[Beor]

Hm. I think that holds some merit, though... if nothing is really new but based on something else... what was the first one based on...?

:eek:





Real, straitforward everyday life. Why, just the other day, there was a Balrog named Phil at the Wal-Mart uptown, and he was trying to buy some of those festive Santa-shaped hotpads for cookware, and he couldnt find them, so he asked a helpful customer service representative, and she said they were out, so he started whipping everyone in the store. So my wife says to me, she says, "Bill, you ought to do something about that guy," and I said to her, "no, honey, it will take care of itself." Thats when some dude came from nowhere and "smote" ol Phil with a magical frying pan made of mythril engraved with some archaic form of Quenyan, and they fought for thirty-three days right there in Wal-Mart (which, of course, is open for 24 hours a day to make shopping more convienent).

[Elemmírë]

LOL!

My god, that reminds me of some of the weird AIM conversations I have with my neighbour... where we start talking about Melvin the Orc and his brothers and how they're going to start a boy band... ;) A sure sign of college kids with too much time on their hands and no real desire to study... :D

[Beor]

LOL!

My god, that reminds me of some of the weird AIM conversations I have with my neighbour... where we start talking about Melvin the Orc and his brothers and how they're going to start a boy band... ;) A sure sign of college kids with too much time on their hands and no real desire to study... :D

See?! Exactly as I said! I know Melvin, but I dont think his band is going to go far. They need a hook, ya know? ;)

[Lefty Scaevola]

You should try READING the Wizard of Oz and the other OZ books by Baum (something like 7 of them, other authors wrote another 20 or so) They are multi layered, with my favorite part being the the extremly sharp statire of societies. The scene in the Marvolous land of Oz, with Jellica Jamb actining as translator between the Scarecrow (then king of the Emerald City) and Kip & Jack Pumpkin Head on the other hand (a satire of diplomacy) still cracks me up just thinking about it.

[Elemmírë]

*sniff*

Now why would I ever read something that is so obviously a LotR copycat? ;)

j/k of course.

Actually, I read the first one... I think. :eek: Actually... I don't believe I ever finished it... I must do that sometime! :)

[Bombadillo]

That is grossly unfair to Tolkien's precedents. He in no way pulled his work out of thin air. His work was built upon EXISTING stepping stones. Granted, his STYLE of fantasy has had huge implications for the fantasy genre today, but the genre in and of itself ALREADY existed. More debate on my opinion than I expected. I would have responded earlier but the thread dissapeared was moved to this forum, which I never visit.

I know, definately, that fantasy authors came before Tolkien, and quite obviously he himself was inspired by mythologies and religion and such. By saying he created the fantasy genre, I was refering to what you called the "modern" style of it. He was certainly instrumental in this, and the most widely (and rightfully, IMO) glorified for this. I used the word "created" because it makes him sound godly.
In saying he perfected it and made it so deep and detailed, I meant LotR and Middle Earth specifically. I think his work is unrivaled in awesomeness and depth. (and as Em notied, that's my opinion on a piece of art. Someone somewhere probably thinks otherwise, but this is Entmoot! :) )
And I see Tolkien "setting all the guidelines for" the genre simply by being the precedent in these respects. He's a model for all later authors (besides Beor, I guess :D), and that's my point: people rarely copy Tolkien, but it's impossible to be completely dissimilar to him when he's so instrumental in fantasy.

I'm making a weak case. If I sound wimpy here look for my other posts on this opinion; collectively I must have explained myself. I can ramble on and on about how awesome he is to me and why, and how he's similar to God, so I have a hard time condensing that into a post. An essay, maybe. :p

[BeardofPants]

Sorry Bomb, but it ain't washing. The notion that Tolkien crafted and guided the fantasy genre... eh? Whatever! :p I still stand by the fact that there are clear precedents. Fantasy is what it is (and I assume you're talking mainstream fantasy as modelled after the style of tolkien, and not ALL fantasy?), because it has been built on a wealth of influences pre-dating Tolkien.

[Wayfarer]

BoP is correct.

There are those sad souls who see how great a writer Tolkien was and try to copy his works and his technique. But those aren't the good authors. The good authors emulate the process he used when writing, which is to borrow from the great stories of the past.

No, don't say that Tolkien created the fantasy genre. Say instead that he revived it. During the time in which Tolkien wrote, fantasy had been slowly dying off and had dissapeared in favor of pulp fiction/adventure/scifi. JRR Tolkien, by writing and managing to publish (remember that LOTR almost didn't make it to the presses) a grand, epic fantasy of the oldest tradition, he showed that fantasy was still a viable form of literature - and inspired others to do the same as he did.

Honestly, when you've read as much as I have you begin to sense the patterns that emerge in in literature and in human experience as a whole. Nothing is created in a vacuum, as I think Tolkien himself was well aware when he called Fantasy an act of Sub-Creation (That is, a subordinate Art possible within the confines of real Creation). As indeed he man himself said, the ultimate goal of all Fantasy is that it should be true, that it "may be a far-off gleam or echo" of Primary Truth.

[Attalus]

Good post, Wayfarer. Tolkien would have been the first to say that he had many, many influences on his tale. I suspect that he would have been proud of being influenced by Beowulf , the Eddas and the rest rather than the reverse.

[ItalianLegolas]

didn't he actually re-write Beowulf? or maybe i'm making that up

[Earniel]

didn't he actually re-write Beowulf? or maybe i'm making that up
He did a translation of Beowulf, that we sadly enough, may never get to read. But that topic has its own thread, if I recall correctly, somewhere....

[Nurvingiel]

I also agree with Wayfarer... people are agreeing with him all over the board! What's the Moot coming to? :D

But really, I don't think there are any blatant LOTR copy cats. Terry Brooks is a great author, but he did accidentally mirror LOTR in "The Sword of Shannarah". I don't think he did it on purpose. Also, his later books have their own unique style (and a high body count ;) ).

[Minielin]

Honestly, when you've read as much as I have you begin to sense the patterns that emerge in in literature and in human experience as a whole. Nothing is created in a vacuum,. Meaning no fiction can possibly be wholly original or without strong influences of past works? I'd agree with that... I can't think of a case that's otherwise, really.

[Lenya]

If you write a stunning fantasy with good foundations, where everything is connected and everyone loves it, you'll have to live with the fact that your idees will get stolen. Like Wayfarer said, it's all connected.

[Beren3000]

An obvious Lotr copy-cat is Book 1 of The Wheel of Time for the following reasons:

-The whole sleepy, insulated village motif
-A stranger coming to the village to sweep the heroes off their feet
-Nazgul/ Myrddraal
-For those of you conspiracy theorists out there: Merry and Pippin / Mat and Perrin :rolleyes:

[Pytt]

Yeah, when thinking about it, I've come across more things from Lotr and Tolkien in the WoT books, though I don't remember them now. But I suppose, you can't read a book like that and then write a in some ways similar book, without taking abit from Tolkien.

[Lenya]

Yip, totally agree. I have also seen some striking resemblenses in the to and can unfortunately not think of any at the moment but I remember something about a few names on the map that bothered me.

[Wayfarer]

Meaning no fiction can possibly be wholly original or without strong influences of past works? I'd agree with that... I can't think of a case that's otherwise, really. Yep.

It may be a cynical stance to take, but I'm really of the opinion that it's humanly impossible to create something original. One fiction is inspired by another fiction, which is inspired by a third, which is inspired by yet another, and so on down the line until somewhere in the depths of time someone was inspired to tell that first fiction, based on real events (which may or may not become twisted in the retelling).

Humanity has the limited ability to discover new things, and to that degree new story-concepts come along every so often, but even relatively new (to the common perception) ideas such as the Engine or the Computer are already going through their nth iteration.

There really is nothing new under the sun.

[Nurvingiel]

Which begs the question... who wrote the first original work?

:confused: :D

(I do agree with you guys though. :) )

[me9996]

Gandalf and Obi-wan Kenobi...

There are a lot, many more I can't think of right now, but you can't always put it down to copy-cats. Some of these things are simply recurrent themes that not even Tolkien created, and I'm not about to accuse him of copying from Norse mythology or Christian theology... :D
Saruman and Count duku?
Luke skywalker and Aragorn?
Merry and Twedledee?

[Lenya]

Merry and Twedledee?

:D love that. (though it is an insult to all Merry fans)

[Nurvingiel]

*bump*

That's a good point about languages Pytt. The history and languages of Middle-earth really do make it seem like its own world. That's actually why I didn't think of it as an alternate history for the longest time.

[Thehoundsofdeath]

Okay, in school my class had to watch "The Wizard of Oz", and me and my fellow LoTR nerds noticed some very obvious very much alike/stolen portions of the movie that were very much like the LoTR books! One such example is the "object of power", in the Wizard of Oz, the ruby slippers, in LoTR, the ring. Another one, would be a a huge gate where all the witches minions(which are orc look-alikes) march through, you guessed it, an enormous BLACK GATE, very much like the one that is the entrance to Mordor! My final such copy-cat is the appearance of short people, in the Wizard of Oz, the munchkins, in LoTR, the Hobbits!

I guess my point is, has anyone else noticed such LoTR look-alikes, or am i the only one?

Rather late in the thread to point this out, but the film of "The Wizard Of Oz" was originally a book that was written in 1900, so could not have been influenced by Tolkien, who did not publish anything until many decades later.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Even the 1939 movie (which made the Muchkins small people, which they were not in the liturature) predated the the publication of LoTR, and the screen play was largely written before the Hobbit was released.

[me9996]

:D love that. (though it is an insult to all Merry fans)

Well if Merry is Tweedledee, then who is Pippin?:evil:

And one thing about the so called "Orc look-alikes" I don't think Tolkien ever discribes the orcs as being green.

In the "Wizard of Oz" movie the minions are closer (In apearence) to Russian revolutionaries than orcs!

And... They're happy when the Witch is dead, unlike the orcs who become somewhat aimless.

[Curubethion]

Saruman and Count duku?

Er...I rather blame that one on Christopher Lee.

[Jon S.]

And The Sword of Shannara is the most blatant rip-off of Tolkien I've ever read. It's also the only book by Terry Brooks I've ever read.
The SoS was basically the vehicle Brooks used to learn the craft of writing. It is very definitely a blatant LOTR ripoff and by far, in my view, his least satisfying effort. For SoS is to Brooks as Meet the Beatles was to the Fab 4. You really should give Brooks another chance.

As for the general thrust of this thread, I would quote Steppenwolf:

Just before we go, I'd like to mention Junior Wells
We stole his thing from him, and he from someone else

Or if you prefer Ecclesiastes:

9 What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done;
there is nothing new under the sun.
10 Is there a thing of which it is said,
"See, this is new"?
It has already been,
in the ages before us.

[Morwen]

People have probably already said this, but POTTER.
I mean, Voldemorts massive cave-lake thing? Moria.
The Dark Lord? THE DARK LORD.
Dementors? Black Riders.
Dumbledore? Gandalf.
Harry's scar "getting heavier when the enemy is near"? THE RING.
Harry's sidekicks? Frodo's sidekicks.
Need I say more?

[Midge]

i did notice that in some of them. Particularly the dementors and the Nazgul - the dementors in the book were described as looking EXACTLY the way Peter Jackson had the Nazgul looking, if only de-cartoonified.

[Wilhelm]

I don't want to call anyone a copycat as we all build our own ideas on the ideas that came before us. I prefer to think of this thread as a place to identify similar themes...

That said, I do note that there are some notable similarities between Gurthang and Stormbringer (A cursed black sword wielded by an antihero, Elric of Melniboné, in several Micheal Moorcock books). Stormbringer ends up killing everyone close to Elric. There are many more similarities which I won't go in to here.

The weird part is that Moorcock was certainly not out to copy JRR as the first novel with Stormbringer in it was published in 1963. The Silmarillion was released in 1977. I don't believe Tolkien copied Moorcock either.

Ultimately, I believe both authors took their inspiration (directly or indirectly) from an old Finnish tale (Kullervo).

[EllethValatari]

(hello, everyone! I'm sorry to have missed most of this debate-I was traveling through Italy for a couple weeks and internet was scarce :) )


So, we've taken a specific thought and made it general, and the main question now is, "are fictional stories really copycats of each other?" (correct me if I'm reading completely outside the lines)

As I've written about in numerous essays, I think fiction is so well-liked because it reflects reality, without being real. It illustrates the rights and wrongs of our world by putting them in a different light: when we step into someone else's shoes what we originally saw ends up looking much different. The differentiating element in fictional stories is what specific idea, problem, etc. the story is illustrating. On the other hand, they all seem to be copycatting each other because they are all "copycatting" the same thing. There is such a place as hell ruled by Satan, and fictional stories reflect hell in their own way...Harry Potter has the huge cave-like structure controlled by Voldemort, LotR has Moria ruled by Sauron. In this way, HP isn't copycatting LotR-and the same applies to most other examples.

[Earniel]

Ultimately, I believe both authors took their inspiration (directly or indirectly) from an old Finnish tale (Kullervo).
I am unfamiliar with the Kullervo tale (the Kalevala is on my to-read-list), but I am fairly convinced that Tolkien modelled Gurthang on Tyrfing, the cursed sword central in the Hervarar saga. Interestingly enough the saga also includes a shieldmaiden.

[Wilhelm]

Hi Eärniel,

Kullervo is a character in Kalevala whose situation closely parallels Turin's (accidental incestuous relationships, a sword that agrees to take it's wielder's life, the sister throwing herself into a gorge/river...)

Tryfing is certainly a possible source as well.

[Varnafindë]

Hi Eärniel,

Kullervo is a character in Kalevala whose situation closely parallels Turin's (accidental incestuous relationships, a sword that agrees to take it's wielder's life, the sister throwing herself into a gorge/river...)

Tryfing is certainly a possible source as well.

I made this post (http://www.entmoot.com/showpost.php?p=652858&postcount=18) in the UT discussion (Tuor/Gondolin) thread with a link to Kalevala (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/5186).

Kullerwoinen, wicked wizard,
Grasps the handle of his broadsword,
Asks the blade this simple question:
"Tell me, O my blade of honor,
Dost thou wish to drink my life-blood,
Drink the blood of Kullerwoinen?"
Thus his trusty sword makes answer,
Well divining his intentions:
Why should I not drink thy life-blood,
Blood of guilty Kullerwoinen,
Since I feast upon the worthy,
Drink the life-blood of the righteous?"

There may be similar swords in other sagas as well ...

[Wilhelm]

Thank you Varnafindë.

Just for comparison here is the exchange between Turin and Gurthang before Turin kills himself.

"Hail Gurthang! No lord or loyalty dost thou know, save the hand that wieldeth thee. From no blood wilt thou shrink. Wilt thou therefore take Túrin Turambar, wilt thou slay me swiftly?"

And from the blade rang a cold voice in answer: "Yes, I will drink thy blood gladly, that so I may forget the blood of Beleg my master, and the blood of Brandir slain unjustly. I will slay thee swiftly."

I'll let the reader determine the extent of any commonality.