Support NeoGAF

[EviLore]

Came across this excellent video essay. It's actually very thoughtful and doesn't focus much on the current state of fantasy, rather using it as a jumping off point for exploring the history of fantasy and its mythological, anti-modern sources.

He argues that fantasy is in large part a reaction to the modern, rational world, as seen with Lord of the Rings circling back into northern European mythological roots.

Recent attempts at fantasy, e.g., Rings of Power, fail to capture any of the essence of what the fantasy genre aimed for when it had defined good and evil clearly and evoked medieval vernacular. He cites this quote from Book of the New Sun author Gene Wolf:

"There is one very real sense in which the Dark Ages were the brightest of times, and it is this: that they were times of defined and definite duties and freedoms. The king might rule badly, but everyone agreed as to what good rule was. Not only every earl and baron but every carl and churl knew what an ideal king would say and do. The peasant might behave badly; but the peasant did not expect praise for it, even his own praise."
-Gene Wolf

RoP's showrunners argued that villains believe they are the heroes of their own story, but that completely contradicts the mythological perspective of LotR, where hero and villain archetypes exist in that pure, clearly defined, pre-modern sense. “The writers think they’re adding the dimension of psychology when they’re actually subtracting the dimension of symbolism.”

Also, he discusses Julian Jaynes. He argues that in The Iliad, Achilles in a literal sense has no free will--he is pulled one way or another by the machinations of the gods. But Jaynes argued that the motivations of the gods are a proxy for his consciousness and internal struggles. Good fantasy likewise utilizes that external symbolism to explore the human condition. That is also lost in recent fantasy attempts, which instead have modern-world character motivations and discourse.

Anyway, give it a watch and let me know your thoughts.

 

[FunkMiller]

Fantasy has always worked best as a morality play. Our cultural myths and legends are also based very much in that kind of ideology.

The issue with 'modern audience' writing is that it constantly seeks to undermine and deconstruct that morality - for no other reason than to prove it's somehow 'different' and 'new'. It isn't, of course. It's just worse.

 

[EviLore]

Fantasy has always worked best as a morality play. Our cultural myths and legends are also based very much in that kind of ideology.

The issue with 'modern audience' writing is that it constantly seeks to undermine and deconstruct that morality - for no other reason than to prove it's somehow 'different' and 'new'. It isn't, of course. It's just worse.

Yeah. The author makes a good point that the original Star Wars and Lord of the Rings synthesize the ancient and modern by casting characters relatable to modern audiences -- the hobbits, Luke, Han -- in a mythological world with definite archetypes of good and evil. They have those characters reach for something greater than themselves within that world, striving for a mythological apotheosis, not based on entirely on power but culminating in morality and character.

I certainly resonate with that a lot more than MCU quips and "the orcs have families, are we the real monsters?" deconstructions that dominate current works. But it's more difficult to pull off and requires having a legitimate interest in literary sources. George Lucas studied mythology, philosophy, religion, et al, Joseph Campbell's Hero of the Thousand Faces when writing his works. Tolkien obviously studied all of ancient Western mythology. The post-modern type of Disney/Netflix/Amazon creator handwaves it all away and doesn't understand any of the effort put in to realize those stories.

 

[FunkMiller]

Yeah. The author makes a good point that the original Star Wars and Lord of the Rings synthesize the ancient and modern by casting characters relatable to modern audiences -- the hobbits, Luke, Han -- in a mythological world with definite archetypes of good and evil. They have those characters reach for something greater than themselves within that world, striving for a mythological apotheosis, not based on entirely on power but culminating in morality and character.

I certainly resonate with that a lot more than MCU quips and "the orcs have families, are we the real monsters?" deconstructions that dominate current works. But it's more difficult to pull off and requires having a legitimate interest in literary sources. George Lucas studied mythology, philosophy, religion, et al, Joseph Campbell's Hero of the Thousand Faces when writing his works. Tolkien obviously studied all of ancient Western mythology. The post-modern type of Disney/Netflix/Amazon creator handwaves it all away and doesn't understand any of the effort put in to realize those stories.

I think his notion of a move to 'enlightened fantasy' is a very valid one, but as he himself points out, this requires the creation of new mythologies and new narratives to succeed.

This is where we, as an audience, are currently being utterly failed by the creative writing we currently have. The talent simply is not there to create something new. There can only ever be the deconstruction of existing things.

Nobody at Disney is inventing the new Star Wars, because they are wholly concerned with constantly reshaping the existing one.

We cannot have somebody like George Lucas these days, because his vision would not fit into the corporate mould. The capacity to allow the kind of creativity and risk required to build new mythologies in enlightened fantasy is smothered by the requirement to sell as much merchandise as possible.

Ultimately, for fantasy to thrive again, I think we require the destruction of the current bloated creative system that was birthed by modern Hollywood.

Also, the use of 'O.K' in Rings Of Power is the perfect encapsulation of everything wrong with that series.

 

[jason10mm]

A lot of fantasy pulls at cultural roots. If you destroy that by pretending that a peoples cultural roots are simultaneously "belonging to everyone and can be appropriated at will" but also "the roots of evil, oppression, and subjugation" then its very hard to have an honest fantasy. For example, today anyone can grab some english castles, a feudal system from france, a bunch of german folklore monsters, the god pantheon of scandinavia, and the landscape of switzerland; fill it with people and attitudes totally foreign to any of those places, and then berate folks from europe who complain.

Yet if I were to travel to ANY OTHER PLACE and tried to adopt their mythology, history, or ancient culture for fantasy, I get labelled as stereotyping, appropriating, and denying authentic voices. The 'rules' for world building in a fantasy environment rarely allow for the types of 'diversity' we see today because very few places in ancient times could support it. People who don't understand history and how and where multicultural ancient sites form don't realize you can't just have a remote kingdom with a bunch of serfs that represent the globe. Even if you don't realize it, such things clash with our internal sense of ourselves and our history.

I'm not sure you can grow up in an english speaking country and accurately capture the mythic flair of another places fantasy. It has to be organic, authentic, and unique, even if distilled and filtered for modern consumption. Tolkien couldn't, and wouldn't, write fantasy based on Japanese mythology because he felt no connection to it. And he most certainly altered english sensibility and european mythology through his personal lens to write LOTR, but it works because it hits a very human cord that resonates amongst folks with values similar to his.

But read Tolkien without his christian values, his english frame of mind, and you fail to grasp the essence of the work and just pull out the trivial details. So much is lost and to the shock of no one but a dull modernist, surprise, its bad!

I like reading really old fantasy before Tolkien laid down a road network so robust almost everyone afterwards just walks on it. You need a sense of wonder, a sense of surrealism, a loose adherence to the immutable laws of physics.

Good fantasy is out there, you just gotta be open to it and ignore all the pretenders.

 

[Mistake]

Some interesting stuff there, the Dark Knight and Clash 2010 were decent examples of them treading the line and going into solid movie territory. Slightly off topic, but I recently started listening to a book called "How to talk to anyone," and I feel it ties in a lot with the current state of media and culture. The biggest takeaway is all the various methods you can use to show someone you're interested, and how to be more genuine. In an age with social media, and the vain vacuousness of internet space, people aren't starving for attention by any means, but they are severely lacking in connections that have a soul. People know when something is fake, and how much effort is involved. A lot of movies now aren't cutting it. The current reboots and remakes combined with writers following social trends makes for terrible immersion, but I suppose it's easy money.

 

[EviLore]

Some interesting stuff there, the Dark Knight and Clash 2010 were decent examples of them treading the line and going into solid movie territory. Slightly off topic, but I recently started listening to a book called "How to talk to anyone," and I feel it ties in a lot with the current state of media and culture. The biggest takeaway is all the various methods you can use to show someone you're interested, and how to be more genuine. In an age with social media, and the vain vacuousness of internet space, people aren't starving for attention by any means, but they are severely lacking in connections that have a soul. People know when something is fake, and how much effort is involved, and a lot of movies now aren't cutting it. The current reboots and remakes combined with writers following social trends makes for terrible immersion, but I suppose it's easy money.

Yes, genuine interest is the way to build connections with people, but the modern world bombards you with distractions and meaningless substitutions for connections like social media friend feeds. Leaves many of us worse off. Similarly, there's a lot of slop being produced for momentary consumption on a streaming platform, to fulfill some algorithmic content recommendation requirement, and it is usually impossible to connect with in a genuine way.

 

[Aces High]

I find that argumentation flawed.

Before the invention of the printing press in Europe, oral songs and stories were used as vehicles for knowledge, wisdom, and propaganda.

The reason many of these stories rhyme is due to survivorship bias—rhyming structures made them easier to remember and transmit across generations.

This suggests we may not have the full picture of ancient or medieval storytelling, as what survives was shaped by linguistic features that favored preservation.

Consequently, storytelling tropes evolved much more slowly in those times, constrained by the limitations of oral tradition. Modern fantasy that replicates medieval tropes is, in essence, reproducing the mainstream knowledge, wisdom, and propaganda of that era.

The important part is the term 'mainstream', because we also need to consider the existence of hidden or ‘occult’ knowledge.

Such knowledge was often encoded to avoid suppression, as was the case with certain scientific and philosophical ideas that could not be openly discussed. For example, some of the founding principles of modern science and even the founding of the United States were influenced by the occult, as these were methods of communicating outside traditional power structures.

The history of civilisation is the history of controlling humans. The more people you can control, the more powerful a civilisation becomes.

Hollywood, much like medieval stories, functions as a machinery of mass education. Its narratives are crafted to shape perceptions, often appealing to broad audiences with accessible, simplistic themes. The existence of elevated or highbrow media can therefore be classified as a fluke.

The video struggles to maintain a meta-level perspective. It's like a fish philosophizing about the design of the net that caught it, unable to see the larger ocean it came from or where the net is taking it.

 

[Boss Mog]

I don't think it's a mystery why modern fantasy media is awful...

 

[EviLore]

A lot of fantasy pulls at cultural roots. If you destroy that by pretending that a peoples cultural roots are simultaneously "belonging to everyone and can be appropriated at will" but also "the roots of evil, oppression, and subjugation" then its very hard to have an honest fantasy. For example, today anyone can grab some english castles, a feudal system from france, a bunch of german folklore monsters, the god pantheon of scandinavia, and the landscape of switzerland; fill it with people and attitudes totally foreign to any of those places, and then berate folks from europe who complain.

Yet if I were to travel to ANY OTHER PLACE and tried to adopt their mythology, history, or ancient culture for fantasy, I get labelled as stereotyping, appropriating, and denying authentic voices. The 'rules' for world building in a fantasy environment rarely allow for the types of 'diversity' we see today because very few places in ancient times could support it. People who don't understand history and how and where multicultural ancient sites form don't realize you can't just have a remote kingdom with a bunch of serfs that represent the globe. Even if you don't realize it, such things clash with our internal sense of ourselves and our history.

I'm not sure you can grow up in an english speaking country and accurately capture the mythic flair of another places fantasy. It has to be organic, authentic, and unique, even if distilled and filtered for modern consumption. Tolkien couldn't, and wouldn't, write fantasy based on Japanese mythology because he felt no connection to it. And he most certainly altered english sensibility and european mythology through his personal lens to write LOTR, but it works because it hits a very human cord that resonates amongst folks with values similar to his.

But read Tolkien without his christian values, his english frame of mind, and you fail to grasp the essence of the work and just pull out the trivial details. So much is lost and to the shock of no one but a dull modernist, surprise, its bad!

I like reading really old fantasy before Tolkien laid down a road network so robust almost everyone afterwards just walks on it. You need a sense of wonder, a sense of surrealism, a loose adherence to the immutable laws of physics.

Good fantasy is out there, you just gotta be open to it and ignore all the pretenders.

Yes, many such examples. The Witcher is specifically based on Slavic folklore. Its Netflix adaptation is a superficial, multicultural, modern feminist reimagining. Nilfgaard in the books is a competent imperial expansionist force with moral complexity, whereas in Netflix Witcher the Nilfgaardians wear penis and scrotum armor to symbolize the patriarchy and act like cartoons. The source material is fundamentally incompatible with the Netflix worldview.

Fantasy, as you said, needs that connection to history, mythology, folklore, religion, culture, etc., whatever that connection may be. In Japan, it’s often rooted in Shintoism with its natural spirits and demons, Buddhism, combined with its rich feudal history, and often a sprinkling of Christian themes for good measure. China has its recently released Black Myth Wukong, which Western publications attacked for preserving an authentic connection to Journey to the West.

Perhaps we’ll see a resurgence in the West in the years to come.

 

[March Climber]

One thing I think would help is for lower budget fantasy to return. I am personally okay with fan films and such, but many people here and elsewhere groan at their efforts even when they are done very well. It is an odd thing to see and something that other genres can get away with easily (like horror) but simply not fantasy.

I think if some budgets are lowered there wouldn’t be so much of a focus on effects and CGI, because that seems to take much more precedent over writing in the more popular shows and movies to the point where some of them might as well be fully CGI.

 

[FunkMiller]

Perhaps we’ll see a resurgence in the West in the years to come.

Western fantasy tends to have a strong strain of individualism in it that is direct anathema to the attitudes prevalent in modern culture. Classic fantasy celebrates the heroic individual - whether it be a small hobbit carrying a ring, a farmboy pulling the sword from the stone, or a soldier set adrift on the tides by capricious gods.

In our 'enlighted' times, the notion of that kind of noble, self sacrificing, pure heroism is frowned upon by people who think they are too clever to believe in such silly concepts.

Deconstructionist media in today's culture are all about slaying the noble archetype. Whether it be Zack Snyder and his appalling takes on Batman and Superman, or Disney's desire to repurpose Luke Skywalker as a mad old titty-milk drinking hermit, the agenda is obvious.

There's nothing wrong with deconstructionist archetypes, but it only really works when you create new characters with which to do it (see Watchmen as the best example of this).

I don't think we'll see a decent resurgence of fantasy in western culture, until the notion that heroism is stupid is purged.

 

[jason10mm]

.There's nothing wrong with deconstructionist archetypes, but it only really works when you create new characters with which to do it (see Watchmen as the best example of this).

Joe Abercrombie does this MASTERFULLY. Many of his characters or plots are intentional subversions but he ensures that the overall story still fits traditional storytelling frameworks.

 

[Hookshot]

Tolkien did write about non white men. he just happened to make them all evil . Elves sometimes become Orcs but not always. Not sure if he wrote about Dwarfs being corrupted by evil rather than greed. There's nothing really stopping other people making black Dwarfs or Asian Elves but lying about those people being heavily present in medieval Europe is a totally different thing to fantasy writing.

 

[ManaByte]

In 2020 WOTC declared that Drow and Orcs cannot be evil, erased the AD&D episode of Community, and it's been downhill since then.

 

[jason10mm]

Tolkien did write about non white men. he just happened to make them all evil . Elves sometimes become Orcs but not always. Not sure if he wrote about Dwarfs being corrupted by evil rather than greed. There's nothing really stopping other people making black Dwarfs or Asian Elves but lying about those people being heavily present in medieval Europe is a totally different thing to fantasy writing.

Tolkein didn't make ALL non white people evil. Just THOSE ones, the ones under the sway of Sauron, that then invaded a (to them) foreign land. He mentions other Maiar like Gandalf off in those lands as well, so you could have an entirely non Gondor/Rohan/Shire focused story.

Issue there is without a good sense of Tolkiens guiding principles, what would be the point? Just come up with your own fantasy land based on Arabia, India/Hindustan, sub-saharan Africa, or whatever.

Of course most of what we know of those cultures has either been filtered through the english explorers that documented it or is locked behind non english language sources, so you would need a fluent speaker to even access it, much less begin to understand the culturally specific mindset to properly delve into what would make a fantasy from those sources interesting. The reason why quasi-medieval Europe is so popular for fantasy is that it's so culturally embedded you don't have to keep explaining things to the audience. Buuuuuuut it's also a bit disingenuous to base your fantasy on gaul, briton, anglo-saxon history but then inject all your modern thoughts into it while simultaneously disparaging those very same sources. Pick a damned side!

 

[Raven117]

There is absolutely a time and place for the traditional fantasy that leans hard into symbolism are archetype.

There is also a place for adding the complexity of “heroism” and that things aren’t as clear cut as they seem.

The issue with the second is that it takes talented writers to make that come alive rather than relying on the traditional archetypes/symbolism. And more over, the writers today aren’t really writing complex characters at all (Ie, instead of blaming the machinations of gods, it is in fact man’s duality struggle), they are clumsily saying “not everyone is bad”, mixing in some “subversion” (in a bad way), throw in some “dei” and you get a story that rings completely hollow to the human soul.

That’s the issue. Does it resonate? And for whatever scholarship you can put to it… convince yourself that it’s good, deep down, in our heart, in your soul, the human condition recognizes that it’s not connecting.

 

[jason10mm]

There is absolutely a time and place for the traditional fantasy that leans hard into symbolism are archetype.

There is also a place for adding the complexity of “heroism” and that things aren’t as clear cut as they seem.

The issue with the second is that it takes talented writers to make that come alive rather than relying on the traditional archetypes/symbolism. And more over, the writers today aren’t really writing complex characters at all (Ie, instead of blaming the machinations of gods, it is in fact man’s duality struggle), they are clumsily saying “not everyone is bad”, mixing in some “subversion” (in a bad way), throw in some “dei” and you get a story that rings completely hollow to the human soul.

That’s the issue. Does it resonate? And for whatever scholarship you can put to it… convince yourself that it’s good, deep down, in our heart, in your soul, the human condition recognizes that it’s not connecting.

I think a lot of current fantasy is really drawing from the superficial trappings of prior fantasy, taking things like the DnD monster manual or the visual aesthetic of the LOTR movies, for example, so its much more dilute. The world building is just shite because the author doesn't have a clear vision or put much thought into it, its just some swords and armor and a dragon grafted to a typical high school YA story. Film can get away with this, things like Star Wars or the DnD movie can just run forward and hope no one stops to look around to realize nothing makes any sense, but real epic fantasy in a long form format can't, which is why you see so many seams when a concept is waaaaay stretched out.

I think history is underutilized for fantasy. Not just "this is fantasy Rome and over there is fantasy egypt and above are fantasy vikings" but the actual events, reactions to the events, and the build-up can be mined to give a much more authentic feel. Been listening to "The Rest is History" podcast about the Frankish Queens Brunhilda (guess she is technically spanishish) and Fredegund (who rose from slave girl to Queen through sheer sex appeal, ruthlessness, and astounding political intellect, a real life GirlBoss[tm]) and their whole brutal and violent tale. PERFECT for exporting to a fantasy world as the events are already larger than life and it incorporates things 'modern' writers want, like strong female characters, in an authentic and organic way. Both of these women lead troops, though I doubt they did much actual fighting, and they directed their husbands in ways that allow for male and female characters to exist in a feudal type environment without anyone claiming "woke" or "mary sue feminist!".

 

[Astral Dog]

current fantasy is just an attempt to insert modern ideologies into art to create political propaganda, as they demonize the old ways more and more it will change from how the west used to make,preserve and value art, inspired/rooted in christian beliefs and traditions

For example you get some Woke director fresh from college he or she won't care about some old work like the Lord of the Rings or its author(or even its audience), and will just butcher it beyond recognition

Not all is lost however i believe as more people demand a free society we will see art,creativity and expression flourish again

 

[jason10mm]

current fantasy is just an attempt to insert modern ideologies into art to create political propaganda, as they demonize the old ways more and more it will change from how the west used to make,preserve and value art, inspired by christian beliefs and traditions

For example you get some Woke director fresh from college he or she won't care about some old work like the Lord of the Rings or its author, and will just butcher it beyond recognition

Not all is lost however i believe as more people demand a free society we will see art,creativity and expression flourish

So the issue here is WHY would a new director that doesn't care for LOTR direct a movie about it? A true creative has their own ideas and injects passion into their work.

So the problem here is why slap the LOTR IP on to a totally different story that A. doesn't faithfully recreate the events as written AND B. does even try to capture the flavor of the story?

Take the new LOTR Rohirrim cartoon. If they just wanted to tell a story about a girl that rejects a marriage and then has to prove her daddy wrong about her suitability to "rule the world" then why use LOTR instead some quasi-medieval setting? The answer is simple, the MONEY MEN want that known IP because they know for the $$$ spent, its the brand that puts asses in seats, not the content and caliber of the story, ESPECIALLY a girl fronted fantasy action movie, those almost ALWAYS go out and die, regardless of how often they try. Hell, almost EVERY fantasy film is a modest success at best as a mild bomb but cult classic usually, and a total financial disaster at worst. LOTR was a singular anomaly of critical and financial success, so I see the appeal to use that name at every opportunity. But it doesn't seem like the end product is gonna feel very Tolkien, at best it will create a bit of nostalgia for the Jackson films and deliver some animated spectacle, but it certainly wasn't created to be a faithful, accurate, or resonating tale of the Helm Hammerhand story (such as it is with what we know if it). There are other stories in Tolkien that would fit a female focused story much better, but nooooooooo, gotta bait that hook!

 

[Astral Dog]

So the issue here is WHY would a new director that doesn't care for LOTR direct a movie about it? A true creative has their own ideas and injects passion into their work.

So the problem here is why slap the LOTR IP on to a totally different story that A. doesn't faithfully recreate the events as written AND B. does even try to capture the flavor of the story?

Take the new LOTR Rohirrim cartoon. If they just wanted to tell a story about a girl that rejects a marriage and then has to prove her daddy wrong about her suitability to "rule the world" then why use LOTR instead some quasi-medieval setting? The answer is simple, the MONEY MEN want that known IP because they know for the $$$ spent, its the brand that puts asses in seats, not the content and caliber of the story, ESPECIALLY a girl fronted fantasy action movie, those almost ALWAYS go out and die, regardless of how often they try. Hell, almost EVERY fantasy film is a modest success at best as a mild bomb but cult classic usually, and a total financial disaster at worst. LOTR was a singular anomaly of critical and financial success, so I see the appeal to use that name at every opportunity. But it doesn't seem like the end product is gonna feel very Tolkien, at best it will create a bit of nostalgia for the Jackson films and deliver some animated spectacle, but it certainly wasn't created to be a faithful, accurate, or resonating tale of the Helm Hammerhand story (such as it is with what we know if it). There are other stories in Tolkien that would fit a female focused story much better, but nooooooooo, gotta bait that hook!

Yes because its just a job to them and makes money(curiously it doesn't bring in many cases anymore), however like they all been doing, they get an iconic brand wich they don't care about or its audience, and the purpose is to butcher it to fit their agendas.

clearly companies have been coerced by the government and liberal institutions

But many people have rejected this approach and these companies are bleeding cash because they openly hate the customer/fanbase of their brands

We just need to remain patient and see how this plays out, we will always have the classics to rewatch, find the ocassional gem and hope that eventually we find common ground so more people make cool art/entertainment again

 

[jason10mm]

Yes because its just a job to them and makes money(curiously it doesn't bring in many cases anymore), however like they all been doing, they get an iconic brand wich they don't care about or its audience, and the purpose is to butcher it to fit their agendas.

I don't think a lot of fresh grad director types think "it's just a job to them". They want to make their statement. Sure there are plenty of directors-for-hire but they are more technical folks in the TV space than true creatives and certainly not any kind of firebrand radical. The real visionaries don't do this kind of shit, they scrape by making their art and eventually their talent will win through or they quit.

I put the blame mostly on writers using the IP to disguise their crap and media execs that let marketing dictate the risks they will take, not creativity. Hopefully AI assisted effects will drastically increase access and lower costs for modest CG so more low budget, high risk stuff can be approved and we get away from milking the same tired IPs for content that just gets twisted.

 

[Guileless]

Saw the title and thought this was about that excerable Rams-Niners game last night with no TDs.

 

[Hookshot]

Saw the title and thought this was about that excerable Rams-Niners game last night with no TDs.

Are games without touchdowns rare?