XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: Troels@ThisIsFake.invalid   
      
   In message    
   Paul S. Person  spoke these staves:   
   >   
      
      
      
   > But then, there are those who claim /Star Wars/ (IIRC, I have seen   
   > this written of Episode IV in particular) is "based on" /LOTR/ as   
   > well.   
      
   The realization underlying my indifference to the specific words used   
   to describe the nature of the derivation is precisely that we tend to   
   use words differently, even if we agree on the definition.  I, for   
   instance, would certainly not used 'based on' to describe the manner   
   of derivation from /LotR/ to /Star Wars/ -- I would probably use a   
   vocabulary from source criticism, as I think it is entirely correct   
   to say that /LotR/ were among the sources for /Star Wars/.   
      
   > I am listening right now to the CD of the /LOTR/ musical. It also   
   > is clearly "based on" the book.   
      
   I haven't seen the musical (nor heard the CD), so I can't really   
   speak to the details, but presumably the musical attempts to tell   
   roughly the same set of main events as the book, using the   
   nomenclature of the book.   
      
   > There is a difference between something that is merely "based on"   
   > a book and something that actually /adapts/ the book. Being "based   
   > on" a book allows much more flexibility.   
      
   I understand the basics, but if we put the limits of this flexibility   
   differently, then the words may become a hindrance rather than a   
   help. For me the various /LotR/ films (including even the horrible   
   Rankin-Bass /RotK/) are all well within the limits of flexibility   
   allowed in an adaptation, and so it doesn't really make sense for me   
   to discuss the use of that word. What /does/ make sense for me is to   
   look at how this flexibility has been used -- how far have this or   
   that element of Tolkien's story been stretched to fit into Jackson's   
   story.   
      
   > The question is, when does "his movie" become so much his that it   
   > ceases to be JRRT's at all?   
      
         Of course The L.R. does not belong to me. It has been   
       brought forth and must now go its appointed way in the   
       world, though naturally I take a deep interest in its   
       fortunes, as a parent would of a child.   
   J.R.R. Tolkien, /Letters/ no. 328 to Carole Batten-Phelps (draft),   
   Autumn 1971   
      
   Insofar as an adaptation as a piece of art is anyone's in particular,   
   it /must/ be the adapting artist's. The films, in my view, are wholly   
   Peter Jackson's (or Bakshi's or Rankin & Bass' etc. etc.) no matter   
   how close they stick to Tolkien's story.   
      
   If you mean something else by the possessive, then I would suggest   
   that a binary view is too simplistic -- it's not a binary question,   
   but a matter of grades in many dimensions.   
      
   > That is, when is it "based on" JRRT's writings but not an   
   > adaptation of them?   
      
   And the obvious fact that different people have different points at   
   which this happens makes such a discussion problematic (not to   
   mention the loss of information in the binary representation, even if   
   we had some standard body to set the limit).   
      
   --   
   Troels Forchhammer    
   Valid e-mail is    
   Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.   
      
       This isn't right. This isn't even wrong.   
    - Wolfgang Pauli, on a paper submitted by a physicist colleague   
      (Thus speaks the quantum physicist)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)