LotR on-line gambling

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Well, exactly.

Imagine, say, several thousand years ago, in some random tribe, an ancient wise man sitting by the campfire and telling stories... just because he wants to tell them and because he likes to tell them. Eventually, it is possible that his fellow tribesmen are going to like his stories so much that they are going to give him food and clothes and whatnot - from their own decision, because they like it. Eventually, it is even possible that the man will be so highly appreciated that he will get enough to sustain his living from just these gifts.

But will it be normal, then, if some other man - let's say from another tribe - visited him and agreed with him to learn his story in order to tell it in his own tribe, but he will not do it because he likes the story or wants to tell it and enrichen it with his own expressions and talent*, but only because he saw that he can easily get things for his living for it? One might say: Well, but who cares, technically the result is the same. The point is that the other tribe can hear the nice story as well. Is it? I say not. And if later the man, inspired by seeing another artist getting appreciated for his work, will start to create clay statues of characters from that story to exchange with his tribesmen for even more things, because he knows that they will give him more things for them, now, doesn't it all sound a bit ridiculous?

In other words, where we are - where is the motivation? If somebody makes a painting related to Tolkien, because he wants to, and later gets to eventually sell it, well, good for him. If somebody purposefully makes a Tolkien-related painting only because he knows it will sell... well?
And if somebody purposefully makes a Tolkien-related gambling game (i.e. the purpose to make money is there "twice", through and through), now, what is that?

*Note that this speaks (at least partially) in defense of PJ: a thing I rarely do

[skip spence]

Although I understand the sentiment most of you are expressing, I can't really share it fully. At some point in time Tolkien sold the film rights for The Lord Of The Rings and The Hobbit, not, I imagine, because he thought that it would further his artistic goals, but rather to make a buck. He could of course not foresee that this would lead to M-E styled on-line gambling many years later, and if he did, perhaps he would've made a different decision, but as it is, that's a moot question. He did make the deal, and now the present owners are trying to make the most out of that investment, unsurprisingly.

If you don't like the way they milk the franchise to the last drop, don't buy the products. Convince your friends to do likewise. It is after all a (somewhat) free world, and that's how we (most of us) want it.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by skip spence

At some point in time Tolkien sold the film rights for The Lord Of The Rings and The Hobbit, not, I imagine, because he thought that it would further his artistic goals, but rather to make a buck. He could of course not foresee that this would lead to M-E styled on-line gambling many years later, and if he did, perhaps he would've made a different decision, but as it is, that's a moot question. He did make the deal, and now the present owners are trying to make the most out of that investment, unsurprisingly.

If you don't like the way they milk the franchise to the last drop, don't buy the products. Convince your friends to do likewise. It is after all a (somewhat) free world, and that's how we (most of us) want it.

While I agree with you to a point - I don't actually think that this crosses a line not already crossed ( my personal rubicon of what constituted offence to Tolkien was passed way back with Faramir being turned into a complete git ...) . And I believe in the power of the consumer.

I would point out that Tolkien's hand was forced to an extent by the extreme taxation in effect at the time (I found all the details for another thread and without ressurecting that I think he was in the position of having to pay supertax on income he hadn't then received. I am not saying that he had to sell to put food on the table but it was a decision made under fiscal duress. I doubt he had any idea that a film deal would entail all this other stuff.

My only comfort is that presumably some royalties will filter back down to the Tolkien Charitable Trust which does so much good for causes that Tolkien would have approved of. And it seems rather churlish to accuse Tolkien and his family of greed when you look at the accounts of the trust....

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

While I agree with you to a point - I don't actually think that this crosses a line not already crossed ( my personal rubicon of what constituted offence to Tolkien was passed way back with Faramir being turned into a complete git ...) . And I believe in the power of the consumer.

Yeah. Although consumers are morons more often than not, wouldn't you say? Sort of reminds me of that Churchill quote that democracy is the worst kind of government except all the others that have been tried, or something to that effect. Very quotable man, Churchill.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I would point out that Tolkien's hand was forced to an extent by the extreme taxation in effect at the time

Extreme progressive taxing measures seem to have been the vogue all round Europe in the 70's... In Sweden children's author Astrid Lindgren was in the position, because of the great revenues her huge success entailed, that her income taxes actually surpassed her income. This was actually instrumental in bringing down the socialist government after many, many years in power.

All the same, and although I don't know much about the event, I trust Tolkien made an informed decision. He seems to've been capable of it.

[Mnemosyne]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

In other words, where we are - where is the motivation? If somebody makes a painting related to Tolkien, because he wants to, and later gets to eventually sell it, well, good for him. If somebody purposefully makes a Tolkien-related painting only because he knows it will sell... well?
And if somebody purposefully makes a Tolkien-related gambling game (i.e. the purpose to make money is there "twice", through and through), now, what is that?

I think part of the issue here is on the consumer's side of the equation. If I spend my money on a Tolkien-themed painting, yes, I'm out money, but in exchange for that I get... a Tolkien-themed painting. Of course I should hope that the artist did so more out of love for Tolkien than love for profit--and on the internet, it would be easy enough to check for that as a lot of current fanartists just put their stuff up on DeviantArt (and other sites) for free. But if it's a good painting, and I want to encourage someone to continue painting in that style, with that topic and those characters, I wouldn't mind spending my money and owning one of those paintings--even if it's just a print that I could have ripped for myself from the internet.

Whereas if I decide to spend my money on a Tolkien-themed slot machine, what do I get?

...Nothing, most of the time.

And sometimes, more money. Nothing whatsoever related to Tolkien except for the dinky images flashing past my eyes and inevitably ending in disappointment. Even with the rampant pre-movie commercialization hype, I could still get a cheesy-looking Burger King crown with Tengwar script on it.

Unless these slots are letting out coins with the mark of the King and the White Tree on them, this is a new line (pun unintended) that's been crossed. (Personally, my line was when LotR and Burger King got together, as no self-respecting hobbit would eat their fries.)

But ultimately as skip said this is up to the consumer to deal with, and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of fans who were otherwise okay with the film-style commercialization at least never patronized this. I'd rather spend my fannish money on products related to the radio series or even the stage show.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Mnemosyne

I think part of the issue here is on the consumer's side of the equation. If I spend my money on a Tolkien-themed painting, yes, I'm out money, but in exchange for that I get... a Tolkien-themed painting. Of course I should hope that the artist did so more out of love for Tolkien than love for profit--and on the internet, it would be easy enough to check for that as a lot of current fanartists just put their stuff up on DeviantArt (and other sites) for free. But if it's a good painting, and I want to encourage someone to continue painting in that style, with that topic and those characters, I wouldn't mind spending my money and owning one of those paintings--even if it's just a print that I could have ripped for myself from the internet.

Well, just a note - my point in that case was about the painter, not about me. From my point of view, I cannot tell if he really does it out of love or for profit, but he knows. It's just a question of principle.

And as for the power of the consumer, I agree to an extent. Of course you don't have to play slot machines at all, but with many things you more or less have to do them, use them, buy them, but still your choice might be only between two main brands of stuff in the shop...

But whatever, let's not stray into out of topic debates... this was just to clarify what I have mentioned earlier.