[quote="pettytyrant101":1u2fym8j]But when we take TH as written suddenly its disjointed, suddenly we can see where the world has been altered over writing, we can see early ideas that would later be absent, its got things that don't quite fit. And the problem with this is that it breaks our fantasy, it gives a glimpse of the hand of the writer and we're confronted with the fact that its not real, its not history, its a story made up by someone and therefore flawed.[/quote:1u2fym8j]

The only moments I really find jarring in The Hobbit are the anachronisms like Bilbo's matches. My literary 'conceit' (suspension of disbelief) when reading both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings is that Tolkien found and translated the stories but adapted them instead of just translating. This is evident in Tolkien's own words in the Prologue and Appendices to TLotR, but also explains instances like the "freight train" analogy in A Long-Expected Party. The matches are part of the 'world', though, and not a comment by the narrator (unlike some other parts, such as goblins being said to invent modern weaponry). I could try to rationalize it that maybe Tolkien mistranslated or deliberately changed something, but I don't really care enough to go through with the whole suspension of disbelief schtick in this case. I just accept the oddity and keep on reading. I won't miss the matches if they're cut from the film, though.

[quote:1u2fym8j] that's a dilemma for the film makers, TH, the film of the book, could stand as a great film, but not as an extension of LoTR the films, so I think we will lose a lot of the fairytale and get more of the grit which will be a shame.[/quote:1u2fym8j]

It seems clear to me that they are more interested in making prequels to the LotR films (in the context of a five-film series) than adapting the original book. Obviously both are goals to a degree, but the film prequel goal seems to be taking precedence.

I read The Hobbit many times before I ever read LotR. It stands alone. I still find it a better read than LotR. Indeed, in many ways LotR is a bit of a copy of The Hobbit, written for Tolkien's maturing and wrong-headed literary tastes. (He should have kept any Silmarillionazition out of it!) I love both The Hobbit and LotR, but if I had to give one up, it would be the latter that would go. The Hobbit is fresher somehow, more imaginative, yes, more funny, but also more exciting. Bilbo and Gandalf are Tolkien's best formed Middle-earth characters. The Hobbit was REAL. A fairy-story - but REAL. PJ and Co had a chance to practice (and very successfully, all said and done) with LotR. It's now time to do The Hobbit properly. It's the greater work and deserves more respect and a better treatment than the LotR movies got!

The Hobbit is set at the heart of childhood. That's where it should remain. Adults, however, are very welcome to visit. They're bound to love it too. I do.

Personally I see no reason that "Grand Epics" and "Fairy Stories" can't be one and the same. They always were in our Mythic past, in all Cosmo-Mythologies from Celtic/Norse to Greco-Roman to Hindu and Judeo-Christian and beyond. Every single ancient system of Mythology has Magical talking critters, Gods and Nature Spirits, Demons and Daemons, Sorcerers and Mystics, Gnomes and Giants, Unicorns and Dragons etc etc. Like Odo, I prefer a tale that isn't stuck on trying to be too "Realistic". It's the Magic that entices me. That's why I've always been partial to The Hobbit and the Narnia stories.

Of course the History/Language/Theology geek in me also loves the sense of Realism imparted in books like LotR and the Silmarillion too; but again, I just see it all as part of a spectrum without any hard distinctions. To me Magic, the Imagination, and "Realism" should all be of a piece in a good Fantasy. And one should never sacrifice the Magic at the Altar of "Realism".

Of course as an adult, I occasionally enjoy a bit of "adult" material in the mix too . But it only works for me when it is done in the "juvenile" style. Anyone who reads [i:2xinhrj3]Heavy Metal[/i:2xinhrj3] magazine or has seen the film, or Bakshi's [i:2xinhrj3]Wizards[/i:2xinhrj3], or Japanese Anime should know exactly what I mean.

[b:2xinhrj3]GB[/b:2xinhrj3]

Not that different really . Anyway, I was comparing how the filming of talking creatures in Fantasy films could be handled, not the stories themselves.

[b:1vepqsq6]GB[/b:1vepqsq6]

Happy Thousandth Post day Eldo .

[b:ri4rkkhl]GB[/b:ri4rkkhl]

[quote="Gandalfs Beard":21bp44pg]Personally I see no reason that "Grand Epics" and "Fairy Stories" can't be one and the same.[/quote:21bp44pg]

They're two parts of the same genre, certainly. I can't speak for Odo or anyone else, but by calling The Hobbit a fairy story I only mean that it takes a less serious, less adult, and (I suppose) less gritty approach. This distinction isn't as clear in the latter chapters of The Hobbit and the early chapters of The Lord of the Rings, though. (Incidentally, Book I of TLotR has some of my favourite moments).

[quote:21bp44pg]To me Magic, the Imagination, and "Realism" should all be of a piece in a good Fantasy. And one should never sacrifice the Magic at the Altar of "Realism".[/quote:21bp44pg]

I agree. I don't find TH to be less realistic than TLotR, really.

I don't really think of myself as popular. In person I'm pretty quiet and reserved except around people who I'm comfortable with. Though really, that's much the same online; I wouldn't act as goofy as I do on a forum that wasn't full of people I know and like.

BTW, Odo, happy belated 1000th post birthday!

We're very gentlemanly on this forum, dear chap! That is, if gentlemen were prone to giving each other internet-wedgies.

Tee hee hee hee!

I don't know for sure, but I would assume it involves making someone's brain contort so much that it feels like they've had their underwear jammed through their ears and twisted around the cerebral cortex. Sort of like math does to me.

.. but I thought [i:3tkc8df9]I[/i:3tkc8df9] was [i:3tkc8df9]family[/i:3tkc8df9] now?

I guess that's a relief - or is it?

Providing the posts are all [i:new6offz]quality[/i:new6offz] posts like ours ( ). It wouldn't do to have people posting every silly thought that pops into mind! And, of course, each post should relate to the Topic at hand - which would exclude some of your posts, Eldo - and most of mine!

At the risk at being serious (which, I know, is generally unlike me), I prefer this forum to others purely that reason. Quite a few serious points can be made, and interesting information gleaned here, and the camaraderie does not dilute the process, just makes being here more enjoyable. I think if we got too out of hand, things would need to be done. Even I don't like chaos (mainly because chaos gets boring after awhile). GB does an excellent job in running things. A light but sure hand on the rudder. And the fact I can throw snowballs at him, like the cheeky-little-boy that I am, is just icing on the cake for me. With Tolkien it should always be an imaginative journey, and so why should this forum not reflect that? So long as we always remember that is also a [i:2kkfqgtt]respectable[/i:2kkfqgtt] forum. Yes, pray remember that, Eldo!

[quote="The topic":aw8rv3p2]Hobbit [b:aw8rv3p2]forums[/b:aw8rv3p2]- silly or not?[/quote:aw8rv3p2]

I'd say we're spot-on, GB.

I can't imagine how stone giants are silly. Scary, yes. Ferocious, yes. But not silly.

I don't think the giants are silly so much as out of place. They are reminiscent of natural forces and bar a couple of notable exceptions Tolkien seems to have taken nature spirits and the like out of ME before LoTR was written, but not in the TH which overall has a much more pagan approach to the universe than LoTR.
Oddly in this neck of the world theres a local legend to explain the massive boulders you can find dotted around everywhere- story goes (in brief) that stone giants used to have competitions, who can throw the biggest rocks the furthest. But this was playing havoc with the poor mortal humans whose houses kept getting flattened by rocks. So the humans damned a river in a glen and next year they challenged the giants to stone chucking contest. When the giants were all in the bottom of the glen ready to start throwing they released the dam and drowned them all. This neatly explained why there are isolated huge boulders everywhere and where the loch came from.
Of course the glen, the loch and the rocks are the result of glacier activity during last ice age and the rocks were just dumped when the ice melted- but I know which version Id rather watch a film of. I'm sure there was a point to all this, feel free to dig around and find one.

Main thing with the Giants is they seem to disappear somewhere between TH and LoTR. Im sure one side or the other could have made good use of huge stone hurling giants in the War but Tolkien seems to have decided they no longer fit by LoTR along with talking trolls and spiders.

If we can have Trolls (much less talking trolls) I don't see why Giants wouldn't work. They're not the same, sure, but they're both large, nasty, mythological beasts.

Talking Trolls, Giants, Ogres, Goblins, Talking Spiders, whatever; they all work in Middle Earth for me.

[b:1psuvn6g]GB[/b:1psuvn6g]

[b:2s7oavzy]GB[/b:2s7oavzy]

No!

[b:2eexom6s]GB[/b:2eexom6s]

Takes One to know One.

[b:2cib3jes]GB[/b:2cib3jes]

Dizzy? Tell me about it![img:2mvl0koq]http://www.narniaweb.com/forum/images/smilies/35.gif[/img:2mvl0koq]

[b:2mvl0koq]GB[/b:2mvl0koq]