Loopy Pro: Create music, your way.
What is Loopy Pro? — Loopy Pro is a powerful, flexible, and intuitive live looper, sampler, clip launcher and DAW for iPhone and iPad. At its core, it allows you to record and layer sounds in real-time to create complex musical arrangements. But it doesn’t stop there—Loopy Pro offers advanced tools to customize your workflow, build dynamic performance setups, and create a seamless connection between instruments, effects, and external gear.
Use it for live looping, sequencing, arranging, mixing, and much more. Whether you're a live performer, a producer, or just experimenting with sound, Loopy Pro helps you take control of your creative process.
Download on the App StoreLoopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.
Comments
There is probably not a great movie or TV show based on a literary work that didn’t make changes in the process of the adaptation.
It isn’t about changing a source to make the book what you want it to be. It is about making a work that speaks to the audience at the time the adaptation is made.
There is a great conversation between the show runner of Station Eleven and the book’s author about the necessity of taking liberties to successfully adapt a literary work.
Amen
Still annoys me. I was a huge fan of book Ready Player one and although I really enjoyed the movie (even bought it) I was still hugely disappointed in the changes they made for the movie version and that was with the help of the writer.
I thought Anarion does exist in the TV show.
Or maybe I'm confusing him with one of Isildur's buddies who were also trying to make the Numenorian coast guard or whatever service that was
If it makes for good viewing, who cares if it’s faithful to a different medium or not?
To be clear, I am not saying all changes are good changes. I am simply saying changes from the original are necessary and that the mere presence of change is neither mere nor there.
Some adaptations don’t work at all. Some work ok but not as well as as the source. Some are great and capture the essence of the source while veering from the text [Station 11 falls into this category as do the good seasons of GoT]. Some improve on the source.
Take this for what it's worth, but the entirety of Peter Jackson's Tolkein films — all 20-some hours — fails the Bechdel Test. (In case you're not aware of it, it's created by the graphic novelist Alison Bechdel, who was inspired loosely by Virginia Woolf's essay "A Room of One's Own," as a way to address gender inequality in film. For a film to pass the test, there are three simple rules: 1) The movie must have more than one female character with a name; 2) there must be a scene in which two of those female characters talk to each other; and 3) that conversation must about something other than a male character.)
It should be noted that this has absolutely nothing do with a film's quality. Bechdel herself has said that her favorite film, "Groundhog Day," fails her test.
So perhaps the people that were creating this were concerned about young women and girls seeing themselves in the series and made adjustments accordingly.
It’s probably partly to attract a certain potential audience segment, partly to address inequalities that we’re common in older source material, and partly to pad out the somewhat sparse source material that they bought the rights for.
I doubt there’s a single reason underlying the changes.
Sounds like this so-called “Bechdel Test” is a sham and a waste of time. Ideological purity tests should not apply to works of art. People should accept the original work as is, or not. No reason to warp the original intent of a work in order to squeeze out points with critics.
Well it’s not forced on anyone - it’s an observation made by those who wish to do so.
Maybe this isn’t a rabbit hole that we should dive into.
Is it Friday yet…?
Online forums are the definition of rabbit holes. I see no reason to slide into thought police mode unless a discussion is somehow violating the rules set by the site owner here. And as long as no personal attacks are involved, most discussions are fair game.
It’s not everyone’s idea of fun to do that to threads.
Who here would like to see a Peter Jackson-style treatment of The Silmarillion at some point? I know I would, especially since I’ve only a passing familiarity with that book and since it informs the current series, I’d love to see it fully realized, either as a series or a movie (or several movies).
It’s a thought experiment. It’s not cause for a moral panic. It’s a deceptively simple “test” created by a gay feminist to describe how mainstream narratives are privileged.
NeuM is messaging me, as he’s looking forward to me taking you to task for posting this.
I’m not a big fan of people patronizing me, so obviously not going to do it.
Get back on topic. I understand this thread is about “The Rings of Power” and Tolkien-related matters.
Weird. It's just a suggestion as to why source material might have been altered.
I get the feeling from this discussion that a lot of men don’t realize how much less relatable art is in works where the overwhelming majority of main characters are male.
It isn’t woke for a modern storyteller (which is what directors and show runners are ) to want to bring stories alive in such a way that the entire audience can feel truly engaged. The gender of a lot of characters in an awful lot of works happen to be male but their maleness isn’t critical to their role in the narrative.
If I spend a billion dollars on IP rights , I am going to want to draw in an audience that is broader than guys that were devoted to pre-1950’s fantasy fiction as teenagers.
Playing with casting and reinterpreting works has a rich tradition on stage and film.
Several people seem concerned that everyone stay on topic in this thread and only the topic at hand should be discussed. I was told off-topic conversation would “take over the LOTR thread and send it spiraling.” So, there you go. That’s not my concern, mind you.
What are your thoughts about a series or movie on The Silmarillion? Have you read that book?
Bing.
Bing bing.
@NeuM: I’d potentially be interested in a telling of the Silmarillion lore…I have found all of the post-LOTR publications pretty weak as literature….scribblings for completists. As a teenager, I anxiously awaited the Silmarillion’s publication when word leaked….and was sooooo disappointed.
And here I thought peak geekdom of LOTR lore was back in the 70's!
Oh wait. (looks the at average age and demographic of Audiobus forum users when we discussed this in the past...)
Carry on.
The same was thought of Dune until recently. And I’m so glad Denis Villeneuve remained committed to realizing his vision for that story.
I guess I was very surprised rather than disappointed. I had a gift card for a bookstore (maybe a year after it was released), and couldn’t make up my mind whether to buy it or The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. I bought the former, but wished I’d bought the latter.
However, it grew on me a lot after successive readings, and I would love to see someone really do Justice to the book in a film. That would be something I’d like to see del Toro take on.
Article on Guillermo del Toro’s tumultuous experience working on The Hobbit with Peter Jackson: https://www.looper.com/202086/the-real-reason-guillermo-del-toro-didnt-direct-the-hobbit-trilogy/
a review from a Tolkien fan:
https://off-guardian.org/2022/09/20/review-the-rings-of-power/
I don’t have a TV, so I cannot comment myself.
Lucky you!
A lot of the criticisms seem valid, especially for a person with that degree of familiarity with the source material. I liked Peter Jackson’s LOTR series because, as Jackson said, they were making a series of movies based on the books and with as little interpretation on the part of the filmmakers as they could manage. The first step in making a faithful movie adaptation of a book is caring about the material.
So, it’s Friday…
Hmm…more of an episode to set things up for the next one I guess.