All times are UTC


It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 1:24 pm



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Why films should have more rules than games
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:10 pm 
Wayfarer
Wayfarer
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:14 pm
Posts: 47
Location: Sydney, Australia
Hey Dr Grant, nice armour :) you've got it right in that I think when you adapt a character for a film you are doing something different than when you adapt it to a game, or when you change it during an individual game you are playing. This is because I think games and films are driven by different things, games rely on turns and dice but films on characters. So what I'm saying is, to change a character in a film alters a fundamental aspect of the film, while changing a character in a game is a secondary issue.

I think from what you've said that you take the game as on par with the film. I don't do that. For my part, I think that's an exaggeration of the artistic aspect of the game and an underestimation of the potential value of film. I'm not saying your approach is wrong, that's your opinion and I've no problem with it! I mention that because I think it helps clarify where I'm coming from. As an art I think film has much more to offer than a game and in therms of the PJ films I think there is a lot more that could have been done using that art.

In terms of the GW game itself, it's a strategy game based on arbitrary dice roles. If we were discussing an RPG I would say that there is less of a difference between the game and the film as becoming the character you are playing is an integral aspect of RPGs. The GW game does not have that dimension, I think. Part of the fun for me is rolling a dice and having a model do an entirely different thing in my game than in the book. (Like Aragorn not charging a troll due to a failed courage test) So the fun in a GW game can actually come from distorting the characters.

That last paragraph is more about what I think is fun in the game so if you disagree and like to play the game differently that fine! The main thing I want to discuss is paragraph two.

Also, I'm coming down on the whafrog side in the Faramir debate.

_________________
"When the god had in mind the making of a world through a word (logos) his first thought was Athena"
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Why films should have more rules than games
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:41 am 
Wayfarer
Wayfarer
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 12:11 pm
Posts: 43
Location: Limerick
whafrog wrote:
I don't recall that. He certainly thinks about it and talks about what could happen if he did take it, then rejects it because he swore an oath. I think that's one of the keys, different people find different ways to reject the insidious "offer".


No he doesn't. He deduces that Frodo is the Hafling from his dreams and thus he is carrying the weapon of the enemy. And then he tells him not to fear for he has no desire for it. There's no way about it, we never really know why he was that resilient, because as is written, he just is. I'll comment more on his lack of character development in the book later.

whafrog wrote:
I'm also not sure why you single Faramir out as unreasonably stoic, yet three Hobbits, an Elf, a Dwarf, and Aragorn managed it. As Gandalf explained, the blood of Numenor ran more truly in Faramir than in Boromir, hence his relative mental strength.


I'm singling him out because he is the ony character that makes no sense to the rest of the lore that Tolkien laid out with regards the Ring. It is established that certain races are more susceptible to the power of the Ring than others. Men are shown to be weakest. Dwarfs are said to have a natural resistance to its magic, and Hobbits are surmised by Gandalf to be incredibly resistant due to their heart knowing no true evil. Elves are never really focused on but are in the middle there somewhere it seems.

More importantly to that, Merry, Pippin, Gimli and Legolas are never presented with the Ring, so we have no idea how they would respond. Sam takes it and struggles with it greatly. Both Gandalf and Aragorn feel a strong temptation from it. Yet Faramir doesn't feel that temptation and denies it straight off the bat pretty much.

You've even stated above how Gandalf mentioned Faramir had the blood of Numenor run truer in his veins than in Boromir, and so he had a better resilience. By that logic Aragorn, who is a direct descendent of Numenor, should have a greater resistance than Faramir, and yet Aragorn is affected more than Faramir is. I'm not sure how you cannot see that, all of this is laid out clearly for us throughout the books. When all the lore tells us that this Ring is so evil and that this guy should be more tempted than the others in the example above, where is the logic in him undermining all of that?

whafrog wrote:
PJ's change wasn't necessary for the story, since in the book the reader doesn't know who Faramir is nor what he might potentially do, there is plenty of tension there that can be translated to film.


And what tension is that? It was necessary for Faramir's story on film, because in the book he has no character development, he is just a good guy who doesn't really change. This is not something that can be done on film, as the viewers will not relate to a character that they do not see develop. Knowing who he is and what he does has nothing to do with it, what matters is that if nothing changed within Faramir over two films viewers would grow tired of him and wonder by the end what he was doing in there in the first place. Plus if we saw in film two that Faramir was just the epitome of goodness as he is in the books, then by film three we have a reasonable speculation as to what he will do, as he would seem to have a clear pattern, which makes that point fall apart even. As Beowulf said earlier, maybe it is just because in the modern age we relate to flawed characters who have to overcome that, but regardless of the reason that's how it is, and if the audience don't relate to the character than the film maker has failed.

whafrog wrote:
Nor is PJ's change somehow more true to Tolkien than Tolkien, which seems to be part of your rationale.


I never said that nor implied it, and it's a ridiculous thing to say. What I did say was that I thought PJ's Faramir was a better character than Tolkien's, and that opinion has nothing to do with how true he was to the book. And besides, why would that be part of my rationale when the whole point in an adaptation is to adapt? The exercise is in retelling the story in a way that suits the new medium better, not to try and transfer it as closely as possible for faithfulness sake alone.

Tolkien himself said in letters that he wanted his works to be altered and expanded through different mediums long after he was gone, and that's what has happened. There's this fallacy that most people seem to have in their mind's and that's that the original of anything is automatically better. They react bady to change (a natural human imperative) and this is where purism in adaptational review comes from. But just because something is different from the original doesn't automatically make it worse. Just because Tolkien wrote the original story does not make him infallible, nor does it mean that others will never best him. Part of loving a piece of work is being able to acknowledge when it has a flaw.

_________________
"Do not be naive enough to think a small group cannot change the world; indeed it is the only thing that ever has"
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Why films should have more rules than games
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 2:49 pm 
Loremaster
Loremaster
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 12:53 pm
Posts: 1827
Location: CO, USA
Considering the early drafts for the Hobbit had Gandalf named Bladorthin and that he also went back to modify the Riddles chapter of the Hobbit once he established the true power of the Ring, I think we can all rest easy knowing that Tolkien's reputation for repeated editing is well founded and be thankful for it. Who knows if he would have altered Faramir a little more on future reviews and rewrites.

All the characters in the Company and at the Council of Elrond knew who had the Ring and where it was. Even though many probably would not have been able to resist it if they were given the opportunity and it was presented to them (in the way it was offered to Gandalf and Galadriel), they were at least strong enough to resist while it remained “out of reach”. Only Boromir gave in. Sam was weak and tempted by it when he carried it. Bilbo was haunted by the need to possess it again. Even Frodo, in the end, gave in to the Ring and was mastered by it. I do not go so far as to say Faramir could have carried it without being taken in, or even if Frodo would have offered it to him as he did Galadriel would Faramir been able to resist. But he had made an oath and his word and honor were the shield that he could stand behind. He did not allow himself to get close enough to the temptation, not necessarily that he was immune to it. There are many examples in fiction and history of people that are able to stand apart from tremendous temptation by will, faith or love.

I personally don't think every character needs to have a journey of development to be a good character. In the short span of time of the story and films from when we meet Faramir to the end of the tale he doesn’t NEED to grow. Not everyone is going to have weakness or flaws for 20+ years of their lives and overcome them in a few weeks of story time. He was an heroic, honest, loyal and dedicated character when we met him and he was able to retain that through the end. Maybe the fact that he DIDN’T allow himself to come too close to the temptation that destroyed his brother is his journey. But personally I find the patterned and packaged plot and character devices of modern literature to be predictable and disappointing many times. There are so many significant characters in LotR that not all should pour into the same “development” mold. In my eyes it doesn’t make them any less interesting of a character. Tolkien broke what are now many other rules of literature as well. His separation of plot lines and sequential rather than parallel story tracks. Telling significant parts of the tale in flashback or dialog rather than “you are there” action. A major antagonist that never manifests physically in the story for the heroes to face. Most of these would probably be edited out should they come to a mainstream publishing company now.

I know we’re drifting from OP here (I think…). Just wanted to express a response to the Faramir post.

_________________
Wait ye the finish! The fight is not yours.
Beowulf

http://TacticsInMiniature.com
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Why films should have more rules than games
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:50 pm 
Wayfarer
Wayfarer
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 12:11 pm
Posts: 43
Location: Limerick
Beowulf03809 wrote:
I personally don't think every character needs to have a journey of development to be a good character. In the short span of time of the story and films from when we meet Faramir to the end of the tale he doesn’t NEED to grow. Not everyone is going to have weakness or flaws for 20+ years of their lives and overcome them in a few weeks of story time.


True every character doesn't need development, but every important character does, or at least on film they do, and Faramir is certainly important. It's easy to say that you don't think your opinion of him in the film would have been any different without character development because you've never been presented with that scenario. If you look at the Hobbit movie, in the book most of the dwarves had no development and PJ stuck to that in the movie, and yet here afterward the number one criticism is that some of the dwarves got no character development. So I would wager that a direct translation of Faramir would have been boring on film (and made Frodo and Sam's story boring to boot in TTT).

As for that last line in the quote above, there are some issues here. Firstly Faramir's time in the tale is much longer than just a few weeks. Secondly in reality people go through changes quickly all the time, and it's usually because a catalyst is introduced. In the film Faramir is given a journey in character to undertake, and his catalyst is seeing what the ring does to Frodo and hearing what it did to Boromir. It's not just a sudden change out of the blue for no reason.

Beowulf03809 wrote:
I know we’re drifting from OP here (I think…). Just wanted to express a response to the Faramir post.


Yeah I agree, and to be honest it is kind of a pointless discussion anyway. One thing I've learned about the effect of Tolkien of people over the years is that everyone makes their own opinion and seemingly is never swayed from it. I've honestly never seen a debate such as this resolved online, so perhaps we should agree to disagree (same goes for my debate with whafrog) and let the OP have his discussion of game characters back. I'm sure we respect each other's point of view enough to leave it that.

_________________
"Do not be naive enough to think a small group cannot change the world; indeed it is the only thing that ever has"
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Why films should have more rules than games
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:03 pm 
Loremaster
Loremaster
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 12:53 pm
Posts: 1827
Location: CO, USA
Yep. I actually enjoy these discussion, and I hardly think of them as argumentative as a civil conversation should be manageable online as well as in person. And yes, I do alter my opinion of items at times based on the perspectives presented. For example I was initially very put off by the presentation of Radagast in the Hobbit. After a few threads here I am now only mildly put off. :rofl:

Returning to the OP (I think), I'm still not sure what sort of 'character' boundaries can be imposed on a profile/model in a game such as SBG. In scenarios where they represent a specific scene out of the book or film it is easier since you can frame the scenario conditions appropriately. But just because something happened in the book or film there is not much that can (or IMO should) be done to force similar actions in the game. For example, would I want my Gandalf to sacrifice himself any time an opponent brings out a Balrog? Or must I always bring Eowyn along in case someone plays the WK considering that “No man” situation? Does Faramir need to charge forward at the head of a battle instead of letting WoMT absorb the initial blow and he comes in with the second rank (hardly “heroic” but a reasonable tactic on the table at times)?

As I expressed before, if the game designers assign profiles and special rules to characters that all that model to perform in a way that mirror what we accept the character to be able to do without going overboard then I think they did their job well. This is not always easy to do, especially in a moving-target like a game that continues to evolve and introduce new profiles over the course of years.

_________________
Wait ye the finish! The fight is not yours.
Beowulf

http://TacticsInMiniature.com
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Why films should have more rules than games
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:36 pm 
Loremaster
Loremaster
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2011 10:13 am
Posts: 1502
Location: Did you really think I'd tell YOU?
I, too, saw Faramir rejecting the Ring more as Faramir's strength then the Ring's weakness.

And I must disagree on the statement that PJ's films are bad in character representations. Frodo, Sam, Legolas, Gimli, Boromir, Eomer, Eowyn, Elrond were all developed perfectly. Faramir and Denethor were not developed the way I would have done, but once the path was chosen, it was well done.
The only gripe for me is the application of certain "tension stretchers" that we all see through and thus don't fall for. I mean, who expected the Ents to not go to war? If that were the case, why are they on screen anyway? And then PJ pulls the same trick with the AotD (who would have been far better as Tolkienesque grey mist-clad ghosts instead of standard issue ghostly green, by the way).

In The Hobbit the changes from the book were far more fundamental (does anyone notice a trend? It gets worse in every successive film), and as such, it was far less enjoyable to me. Azog was unnecessary and badly done, the same goes for the idea of the Stone Giant, and the whole "being chased by Wargs" thing. Radagast also annoyed me (though not as much as I expeccted). The result is that while LotR was to me, the best books ever brought to screen and life, The Hobbit is just a quite good movie. (It's important to note that I did quite like the added background between Thorin and the Elves. In the book it's a bit like: "This guy accidentally locked me up for trespassing in his lands, so I'm going to wage a war I can't win and in which thousands will die without point in revenge". Makes perfect sense, Thorin.)

_________________
"... Telchar wrought it in the deeps of time."
-On Andùril, The Lord of the Rings

:puppy:
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Why films should have more rules than games
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:42 pm 
Elven Elder
Elven Elder
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 3:04 pm
Posts: 6308
Location: Wandering around looking for Middle-earth
Images: 58
You cannot complain about the look of the AotD, taht was alast minute change afiter they saw the trailers for Pirates of the Carabean and saw that Barbosa's cursed pirates look exactly like what their original idea was.

Sorrty to but in, but I had to defend them.

_________________
"I am the Flying Spagetti Monster. Thou shall have no other monsters before me"
-FSM.
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Why films should have more rules than games
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:49 am 
Loremaster
Loremaster
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 12:53 pm
Posts: 1827
Location: CO, USA
Banned for defen...oops, wrong thread.

I think I heard about that before too. May need to go back and watch the RotK extras DVDs (or is it in the film comentary?).

_________________
Wait ye the finish! The fight is not yours.
Beowulf

http://TacticsInMiniature.com
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Why films should have more rules than games
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:18 am 
Ringwraith
Ringwraith
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:05 pm
Posts: 3140
Location: Canada
Images: 4
GothmogtheWerewolf wrote:
You cannot complain about the look of the AotD, taht was alast minute change afiter they saw the trailers for Pirates of the Carabean and saw that Barbosa's cursed pirates look exactly like what their original idea was.


Interesting tidbit, I had no idea. I guess great minds think alike :)
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Why films should have more rules than games
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 10:05 am 
Loremaster
Loremaster
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2011 10:13 am
Posts: 1502
Location: Did you really think I'd tell YOU?
GothmogtheWerewolf wrote:
You cannot complain about the look of the AotD, taht was alast minute change afiter they saw the trailers for Pirates of the Carabean and saw that Barbosa's cursed pirates look exactly like what their original idea was.

Sorrty to but in, but I had to defend them.


They should just have kept it that way. The Barbossa undead were epic, these failed big time.

_________________
"... Telchar wrought it in the deeps of time."
-On Andùril, The Lord of the Rings

:puppy:
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: