The Fall of Gondolin

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by Conan46

Sequels and Prequels often ruin or diminish the better, original story. That has happened with Star Wars. One wishes they had stopped after the 3rd original movie which lost something even by that 3rd movie. LOTR was written as one continuous story originally and not a trilogy. That same power and continuity doesn't come across in modern trilogies and long running series. They quickly lose steam after the original context and theme peters out a few books into the series.

Agree on all points. The irony is that they started writing the fantasy and SF trilogies (and now now the "forever-ilogies") based on the success of the three part LOTR (which, as you say, wasn't a trilogy at all). I don't know if it's true or not, but I've read that the reason The Lord of the Rings came in three parts is because Unwin & Allen thought it was going to flop and they wanted to save paper by printing lesser numbers of each succeeding book.

As far as I'm concerned, Star Wars should have stopped with the first movie. But that first one was really something. There had never been anything like it. "CGI" effects before there was CGI.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by rcentros

I don't know if it's true or not, but I've read that the reason The Lord of the Rings came in three parts is because Unwin & Allen thought it was going to flop and they wanted to save paper by printing lesser numbers of each succeeding book.

I remember reading that it was due to post war paper shortages.

[Conan46]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Agree on all points. The irony is that they started writing the fantasy and SF trilogies (and now now the "forever-ilogies") based on the success of the three part LOTR (which, as you say, wasn't a trilogy at all). I don't know if it's true or not, but I've read that the reason The Lord of the Rings came in three parts is because Unwin & Allen thought it was going to flop and they wanted to save paper by printing lesser numbers of each succeeding book.

As far as I'm concerned, Star Wars should have stopped with the first movie. But that first one was really something. There had never been anything like it. "CGI" effects before there was CGI.

Some scholar here will know the exact answer, but from memory I'm thinking there was a post W.W. II paper shortage, and Tolkien had planned for it to be released as one book.
I actually liked the second Star Wars movie. It was pretty neat that Lucas put his money where his mouth was, so to speak, and financed that movie himself. Some people actually consider it Empire the best of the movies. I like the first one best with the heavy use of archetypes and mythology. The Ewoks just make me think there was an eye on marketing as much as story and characters in Return. Now the whole thing is literally "Disneyfied" and marketing is everything with story taking a back seat.
I knew franchise was in trouble years ago when I read a Star Wars sequel book and Han was getting chased by zombies. Yeah, way past jumping the shark
On a more positive note, the animated Star Wars series are not bad. They are not made to be block busters. The stories and characters can grow a bit within that format.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I remember reading that it was due to post war paper shortages.

It came out in the mid 50's so the paper shortages should have been over well before then. I remember reading that they split it into 3 books because the one massive book would have been very expensive to produce. Back then, books were frequently much shorter. I know that the LOTR Wiki says that it was to mitigate the possibility of being a flop, but I'm pretty sure I read the other in a quote from Tolkien.

[BenG]

Food rationing didn't end until '54.
Tolkien wrote in a letter dated 1952:

As for The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion, they are where they were. The one finished (and the end revised), and the other still unfinished (or unrevised), and both gathering dust. I have been both off and on too unwell, and too burdened to do much about them, and too downhearted. Watching paper-shortages and costs mounting against me.

And I'm sure the price of an out-sized book would hurt sales. Paperbacks were shorter back then because publishers didn't think people would pay more than 50 cents.

[BenG]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I know less about Tolkien than others here. But one of the things like liked about The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings (and the first three Star Wars movies) is that there was this rich history in the background, much of it unspoken, but as a reader you could see that it was there.

I don't know what it is about fans (particularly fans of fantasy and sci-fi) that they feel the need to explore every last nook and cranny of a fantasy world, wringing every last little bit of magic possible out of it until they begin to resent it (something like what has happened to Star Wars when the prequels were released).

World-building is fine but I've always thought the author should know more about his world than what he tells the reader.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Conan46

Some scholar here will know the exact answer, but from memory I'm thinking there was a post W.W. II paper shortage, and Tolkien had planned for it to be released as one book.
I actually liked the second Star Wars movie. It was pretty neat that Lucas put his money where his mouth was, so to speak, and financed that movie himself. Some people actually consider it Empire the best of the movies. I like the first one best with the heavy use of archetypes and mythology. The Ewoks just make me think there was an eye on marketing as much as story and characters in Return. Now the whole thing is literally "Disneyfied" and marketing is everything with story taking a back seat.
I knew franchise was in trouble years ago when I read a Star Wars sequel book and Han was getting chased by zombies. Yeah, way past jumping the shark
On a more positive note, the animated Star Wars series are not bad. They are not made to be block busters. The stories and characters can grow a bit within that format.

Ever seen the original drawing of the ewoks? Not cute teddy bears at all. Yes, the change to cute teddy bears was all about merchandising.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by BenG

Food rationing didn't end until '54.
Tolkien wrote in a letter dated 1952:


And I'm sure the price of an out-sized book would hurt sales. Paperbacks were shorter back then because publishers didn't think people would pay more than 50 cents.

Interesting. Thanks

[mbovenka]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I remember reading that it was due to post war paper shortages.

That's what I read too.

[crich70]

Leaf by Niggle

I've always thought that "Leaf by Niggle" was purely autobiographical in that Niggle is Tolkien himself. The 'leaf' of course would then be his universe of Middle Earth. Basically Tolkien was expressing the fear that he may be called to go on the journey i.e.die before his work was complete. Certainly there must have been a mountain of material left unedited at Tolkien's passing. Material that his son Christopher has been kept busy putting into publishable form for many years.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by BenG

Food rationing didn't end until '54.
Tolkien wrote in a letter dated 1952:


And I'm sure the price of an out-sized book would hurt sales. Paperbacks were shorter back then because publishers didn't think people would pay more than 50 cents.

I'm sure the economics of the time were a lot different to today's in general. For example when Oswald assassinated Kennedy he then ducked into a movie theater (without paying). The cost to buy a ticket back in 1963 was just under $1.00.

[John F]

Originally Posted by rcentros

I don't know if this will be his last work or not. In his Preface to Beren and Luthien he wrote ... "In my ninety-third year this (presumptively) my last book the long series of editions of editions of my father's writings ..." And yet, here we have another one.

...

Christopher Tolkien's response*:

...The Fall of Gondolin is (indubitably) the last ...

*from the Preface of The Fall of Gondolin.

[tomsem]

It is difficult to come up with examples where sequels by someone other than the original author are equal to or better than the preceding works.

In movies, there are I would say many examples where the remake or reboot or sequel is better. I may be an outlier, but I never much cared for the first six Star Wars movies, while the latest two (and even the spinoffs) are quite good. Likewise the Nolan Batman movies were much better than the previous ones. I think a lot of this has to do with what it is technically possible to realize today with CGI, it is limited not so much by budget but by imagination.

But with books it is about plain old storytelling.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by John F

Christopher Tolkien's response*:

*from the Preface of The Fall of Gondolin.

He's only 94, plenty of time to change his mind ... again. (Like those sports stars who keeps retiring ... he won't be able to "leave the game.") I can't even imagine him having spent fifty or sixty years doing this. I wish him well.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by tomsem

In movies, there are I would say many examples where the remake or reboot or sequel is better.

I don't mind remakes. The Maltese Falcon and The Wizard of Oz were remakes after all. You could wind up with a nice new take on a classic (the Dawn of the Dead remake was better than expected). Worst case, you have a bad remake and the classic stands (most of the remakes of John Carpenter films).