Tintin Forums

I was suprised because it wasn't by Hergé, not because it is, well... you know... lousy.

If Lake of Sharks isn't really anything to do with Hergé, then it is like a fanwork.

Why can't there be other Tintin stories, just like Peter Jackson remade King Kong.

It is to do with Hergé - it was made with his permission, while he was alive, using a story by Greg (editor of the official Tintin magazine, and with the art supervised by Bob de Moor (himself an animator) from Hergé's staff.
Admittedly Hergé was not directly involved, but it certainly is different from a fan work, where the story, art and execution have no link to Hergé at all.
Add to that the fact that Hergé asked for no new Tintin books after his death, and that really puts the tin hat on it for new books.


Your comparison to Kong is a little odd, and I don't see how it applies to Tintin; Ernest B. Schoedesack and Merian C. Cooper (as far as I know) didn't stipulate that Kong not be re-made (Edgar Wallace, nominal author, actually died with only a page or two of notes on Cooper's idea, before the film was made so his input was minimal, if any).
Are you suggesting that someone should re-make the Tintin albums?

Personally, while I don't think it is a great work, I find Sharks to be not that bad either - it's probably better than Blue Oranges!

When I was younger I thought The Lake of Sharks was simply a Tintin album; I think people here give it a hard time purely because Hergé wasn't very keen on it and didn't write it.

I have always quite liked it, and many of the criticisms against it like the plot not making enough sense could be held against some regular Tintin books.

R

I think the validity of Lake of Sharks coming down to Hergé's approval is a bit of a moot point, considering that the most visible animated version (and the stage adaptions) were made after his death.

I've never seen the film, but yes, I agree that the album pales in comparison to Hergé's Tintin.

However, when it comes to what's "in" and "out" of the official Tintin canon, it's really it's up to the deliberation of the Hergé foundation now.

So if Lake of Sharks is a recognized part of it, so be it. I agree about its purported crappiness (oh, us flagrant Aussies! :D ), but it's not like one little story can defame an otherwise sound body of work.

The Nelvana series ain't a masterpiece either, and even that has not tarnished Tintin's "classy" image.

I don't know about Greg getting Hergé's approval, he didn't seem to like the movie at all and kept well away from it.
Bob de Moor's talents are well documented, but Greg seems to have cheapened Tintin with his TV adaptations and his less than good animated movies.

It's a terrible mish-mash of far superior Hergé-ian adventures. I'd prefer if Lake of Sharks wasn't even inserted into the canon just for fun.

Lake of the Sharks is to the Tintin franchise what the Star Wars prequels are to the original trilogy... only far, far worse. It's like they took the elements of the previous adventures, shook them all up, and chucked them against a wall then made a film based on how they came out.
It's like Dan Brown rewriting Great Expectations.

Yes and no. While the prequels aren't as good as the original trilogy (they have their enjoyable moments still) they're canon. Tintin and the Lake of Sharks isn't canon in any shape of form.

Question. The lake of Sharks isn't in the official Tintin series. Right?