Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

yeah, and the Greeks just had this little flaw in the ability to proove stuff. They didn't have the process down and it frankly didn't matter to them all that much.

Yes, he was wrong. But it doesn't mean the greeks were idiots and couldn't write well. Logic is perhaps one of the greatest advances ever made.

Well if only Aristotle's logic was good enough to conduct an experiment comparatively and not doing one and summarising that maggots come from nowhere, you and I could be living in a world far more advanced where Tolkien lived old enough to write LOTR 2: The lary years.

NERD FIGHT!

Grey Templar wrote:Yeah, Shakespeare wrote plays. Plays are not meant to be read, they are kinda lame when its read and not acted.

Tolkien wrote literature. He wrote up multiple languages, one of them is both spoken and written. A complete language is a massive accomplishment.


I would go so far as to say Tolkien is comperable to Plato and Aristotle. Shakespeare was some, potentially fictional, person who wrote some political satire, raunchy, and some rather odd plays. I would compare him to a modern screen writer. Not exactly something to be held in awe by others.

Tolkein also "appropriated" most of the actual story per se' from certain Finish Myths. Excellent writing though.
Shakespeare was meant to be done in three parts in 2 - 3 hours. When done properly, when you have the cliffnotes and understand what is going on, then you get the melodies and greatness of many (not all) of the works. Its meant to be lived, not read.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

snurl wrote:I think these films will be great. The only way to really screw it up would be to make the story into an animated musical.

Legions of wiener dogs are now rising, have heard the sound horn of vengeance. Some of my best early memories were both reading and and watching the animated musical.

Frankly without it you'd have a lot less Tolkein fans.

CT GAMER wrote:Not to mention that if we are being truely honest Shakespeare is boring as all feth and most of the people who spout on about him are pretentious twits...

So, the vast majority of literary academics of the last three centuries have all been pretentious twits? Yeah, right...

Back on topic: I'll be glad to go and see a book I loved as a child on the big screen, but I'm not half as excited by the Hobbit as I would be by an adaptation of Moorcock's Elric stories, or of Neil Gaiman's American Gods. Or a Conan film that was faithful to Howard's stories and not terrible, come to think of it.

So, the vast majority of literary academics of the last three centuries have all been pretentious twits? Yeah, right...

I could agree with that statement.

Frazzled wrote:

So, the vast majority of literary academics of the last three centuries have all been pretentious twits? Yeah, right...

I could agree with that statement.

Moments after I had typed that statement, I wondered how long it would take Dakka to produce a glib, low-brow response.

At slightly less than two minutes, even I am impressed.

English Assassin wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

So, the vast majority of literary academics of the last three centuries have all been pretentious twits? Yeah, right...

I could agree with that statement.

Moments after I had typed that statement, I wondered how long it would take Dakka to produce a glib, low-brow response.

At slightly less than two minutes, even I am impressed.

Why is it "low brow?" I love Shakespeare and Moliere fyi. I just think academic critics are generally idiots who can't write.
Please express how that is inaccurate?

English Assassin wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:Not to mention that if we are being truely honest Shakespeare is boring as all feth and most of the people who spout on about him are pretentious twits...

So, the vast majority of literary academics of the last three centuries have all been pretentious twits? Yeah, right...

Back on topic: I'll be glad to go and see a book I loved as a child on the big screen, but I'm not half as excited by the Hobbit as I would be by an adaptation of Moorcock's Elric stories, or of Neil Gaiman's American Gods. Or a Conan film that was faithful to Howard's stories and not terrible, come to think of it.

An elrick movie would be awesome been waiting to see storm bringer on film for a long time.

Glorioski wrote:The Hobbit was a fun book...but, that's all. I have no doubt this production will try to make it out to be a literary masterpiece which somehow resonates as a tale of humanity. Like the last two LOTR films did. It's Tolkien not Shakespeare ffs.

Comparing Shakespeare to Tolkien is a bit silly...

I refuse to watch this, as it's impossible for the movie to perfectly match how I imagined it as a child and as a result I'll be disappointed no matter how amazing it is. My dad read the Hobbit to me when I was seven and by god it stuck with me.

Sorry Frazzled but that cartoon was the biggest disappointment of my life. I too read the books, and when I heard that Rankin Bass were doing a TV special on it my imagination ran wild with how cool their fameous stop motion brand of animation would look.
I snuck out of work early, drove like mad and comandeered the TV just as it came on......
Only to find that ugly 2D cartoon. Then the musical numbers started. I sat through it, hoping it might get better...

Heretic! The wargs come for you!

Glorioski wrote:Well if only Aristotle's logic was good enough to conduct an experiment comparatively and not doing one and summarising that maggots come from nowhere, you and I could be living in a world far more advanced where Tolkien lived old enough to write LOTR 2: The lary years.

Honestly, the string of your response on Aristotle just proves your complete ignorance of philosophy, scientific history and ancient history. How could someone have set back 1000 years a science that did not exist at the time. How could someone who, singlehandedly, 1800 years before the first idea of the scientific method was even formulated, founded realism, could've done anything negative for knowledge? The man who invented the categorization of life according to common characteristics, and discovered that dolphins were mammals, made a mistake on the developpment of very specific life forms. Do you not realize that the simple fact that he gave a rational explanation grounded in realism is of tremendous importance, and in itself a more singular accomplishment than anything put forward in the following 1000 years?