2023-03-02 09:49:51 <KipIngram   > Well, I finally got around to watching the third Lord of the Rings movies last night.  I watched the first two several weeks ago.  I decided that my biggest complaint about how they rendered the story to screen was that they cast the hobbits (and particularly  Frodo) as very "childish" characters.
2023-03-02 09:50:03 <KipIngram   > In the books, Frodo was 50 years old - he was a seasoned and mature adult.
2023-03-02 09:50:21 <KipIngram   > The other hobbits were younger, but only Pippen could have in any way be called "a kid."
2023-03-02 09:50:49 <KipIngram   > But they had all four of them interact with the human characters very much like they were children.
2023-03-02 09:51:35 <KipIngram   > And they really did go kind of whole hog into treating Gimli as a "comic relief" character.
2023-03-02 09:52:41 <KipIngram   > It's funny - you can find all kinds of commentary out there with people referring to these as "the best movies ever made," but on the other hand Tolkien's son said that the movies "eviscerated" the books.
2023-03-02 11:27:43 <Zarutian_iPad> 
ACTION is mulling over if he should buy one of https://weekendcheers.com/products/led-powerful-outdoor-flashlight?gclid=Cj0KCQiAo-yfBhD_ARIsANr56g7wQX0Kcr5rKWWlx_ACYTgV996wLSODT47c8Stpxi4TAbGfb9ap3J0aAkEbEALw_wcB just for the novelty value of owning a pocket sun

2023-03-02 11:28:32 <Zarutian_iPad> old style flashlights always irritated me of how little actual light they gave
2023-03-02 11:35:11 <thrig       > the Soviets had nuclear powered lighthousen
2023-03-02 11:52:14 <veltas      > KipIngram: Don't hobbits have longer lifespans though?
2023-03-02 11:52:24 <veltas      > They don't have teenagers they have tweenagers e.g.
2023-03-02 11:55:45 <thrig       > "old, but still young" isn't really explained well in fantasy
2023-03-02 14:08:39 <veltas      > thrig: I think it's a common theme in ancient religions that in the "before times" people lived longer, were stronger etc
2023-03-02 14:08:50 <veltas      > Were larger
2023-03-02 14:09:44 <veltas      > It feels borrowed from that
2023-03-02 14:10:38 <thrig       > Ovid did ramble on about the golden age
2023-03-02 14:10:47 <thrig       > probably should re-read metam. at some point
2023-03-02 14:11:01 <veltas      > More mysterious people like the Hobbits, the Numenorians, the Dwarves etc live longer
2023-03-02 14:11:46 <veltas      > Aragorn was 80 or something in the main events of LotR
2023-03-02 14:38:32 <KipIngram   > Yeah, they say they "come of age" at 33.
2023-03-02 14:39:02 <KipIngram   > So maybe he's not equivalent to a 50 year old person, but still not a child.  Maybe he'd be more equivalent to a 30-year old person.
2023-03-02 14:39:11 <KipIngram   > That's still an adult.
2023-03-02 14:39:37 <KipIngram   > They don't actually SAY how long they live, although Bilbo made it to about 130 or so.
2023-03-02 14:40:01 <KipIngram   > The Numenorians lived much longer - several hundred years.
2023-03-02 14:40:07 <KipIngram   > And the dwarves too, as you said.
2023-03-02 14:40:27 <KipIngram   > Numenorian life span declined as they mixed with "common men."
2023-03-02 14:41:07 <KipIngram   > Zarutian_iPad: Get it!  You know you want it!  :-)
2023-03-02 14:42:18 <thrig       > granted Ovid never grappled with 50 year old "children" interacting with ...
2023-03-02 14:42:33 <KipIngram   > I had a conversation on a Physics Forum type website once with a guy over in (I think) Poland whose hobby was building super-bright handheld lights.
2023-03-02 14:43:34 <KipIngram   > Yes, Aragorn was like 87 or something like that, and wound up living to around or a little over 200.
2023-03-02 14:44:23 <KipIngram   > Anyway, yeah - your point is completely right, but I don't think it's enough to justify the extent of their child-like nature.
2023-03-02 14:44:47 <KipIngram   > It's like Peter Jackson wanted them to bE "cute."
2023-03-02 14:45:56 <KipIngram   > I think a big aspect of the adoration of those movies today arises from the fact that the people who are doing all the praising saw them as children, and enjoyed them.  Without knowing the first thing about the books.
2023-03-02 14:46:24 <KipIngram   > I have a lot more use for the 2005-or so Dresden Files TV show because I saw it before I ever discovered the books.
2023-03-02 14:46:33 <KipIngram   > People who read the books first normally don't react well to it.
2023-03-02 14:47:10 <thrig       > the movie 2001 didn't follow the book reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
2023-03-02 14:47:30 <KipIngram   > Oh yeah.
2023-03-02 14:47:41 <KipIngram   > Kubrick was shooting for "arT>"
2023-03-02 14:47:52 <KipIngram   > Arthur C. Clarke was a VERY straightforward writer.
2023-03-02 14:47:57 <KipIngram   > So that was a huge gear shift.
2023-03-02 14:48:03 <thrig       > (the book came out with, or maybe after the movie)
2023-03-02 14:48:17 <KipIngram   > Anyway, I understand the Dresden "book then show" folks - the books are way way (way way way) better.
2023-03-02 14:48:31 <KipIngram   > What?
2023-03-02 14:48:44 <KipIngram   > No - 2001 was published first as a book wasn't it?
2023-03-02 14:48:55 <thrig       > internet fight! time to google!
2023-03-02 14:49:11 <KipIngram   > No, I'm wrong.
2023-03-02 14:49:16 <KipIngram   > Looks like they were both 1968.
2023-03-02 14:49:20 <KipIngram   > Well, that's news to me.
2023-03-02 14:49:25 <KipIngram   > I would have never guessed.
2023-03-02 14:49:34 <thrig       > THAT"S THE JOKE
2023-03-02 14:49:44 <KipIngram   > That's my bit of useless knowledge for today - thank you thrig.
2023-03-02 14:50:07 <KipIngram   > I like 2010 better, and in that case the movie is pretty close to the book.
2023-03-02 15:14:34 <KipIngram   > I think of 2010 as one of the better sci-fi movies ever made.  Very solid.