Re: Are The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit the best high fantasy movies ever?

by Radaghast Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:52 pm

BTW, there's a Wikipedia entry on high fantasy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fantasy

One of the requirements is that the fantasy take place in a different reality.

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:55 pm

So LotR's doesnt count then- same reality, just long ago.

by Elthir Thu Sep 25, 2014 6:27 pm

I vote for the film in Bungo's avatar: the owl in the snow [probably the title]. As I meditate upon the falling snow I get lost inside a different world, and I know there is some high fantasy there... the colours, the enigmatic posture of the great owl...

... well, I can't wait to see what happens next!

I imagine the owl's name is Nicodæmen... but that's just my interpretation.

The Owl in the Snow [now the official title] may be short (although that depends upon how long you watch it)... but I much prefer it to Jackson's Hobbit on several, possibly all, levels.

by Eldorion Thu Sep 25, 2014 6:48 pm

The Wikipedia article tries to bullshit their way around that one, but it doesn't really work. Still, I do think that world building is an important component of high fantasy, and that usually involves a setting that is clearly not just our world with magic pasted on top. Series like Harry potter exist in a grey area because they're mostly separate from the real world while still existing parallel to it.

by Elthir Thu Sep 25, 2014 6:56 pm

'Series like Harry potter exist in a grey area...'

by azriel Thu Sep 25, 2014 7:02 pm

"I often move to the side, then to the other side, then I fall over drunken" Petty.... lol!

He's said that bloody word again hasnt he ! grey ! Rolling Eyes

by Elthir Thu Sep 25, 2014 7:16 pm

Hey... I didn't say it... I only agreed with the saying of it!

Although hey rimes with grey, even when I spell rimes like that.

by azriel Thu Sep 25, 2014 7:42 pm

Ok, you may have agreed but, you highlighted the word in pink Red rag to a bull that Nod

by Mrs Figg Thu Sep 25, 2014 7:52 pm

Elthir wrote:I vote for the film in Bungo's avatar: the owl in the snow [probably the title]. As I meditate upon the falling snow I get lost inside a different world, and I know there is some high fantasy there... the colours, the enigmatic posture of the great owl...

... well, I can't wait to see what happens next!

I imagine the owl's name is Nicodæmen... but that's just my interpretation.

The Owl in the Snow [now the official title] may be short (although that depends upon how long you watch it)... but I much prefer it to Jackson's Hobbit on several, possibly all, levels.

the Owl looks like a Barn-aby to me. Very Happy

by Bluebottle Thu Sep 25, 2014 8:00 pm

Eldorion wrote:The Wikipedia article tries to bullshit their way around that one, but it doesn't really work. Still, I do think that world building is an important component of high fantasy, and that usually involves a setting that is clearly not just our world with magic pasted on top. Series like Harry potter exist in a grey area because they're mostly separate from the real world while still existing parallel to it.

The definition is definitely flawed.. because.. come on.. Tolkien is High Fantasy, and High Fantasy is Tolkien. Eerything written as high fantasy is written in the tradition of Tolkine. A definition that misses Tolkiien obviously misses the mark.

So it might be a formal definition, but it fails in practice. Shrugging

by Bluebottle Thu Sep 25, 2014 8:01 pm

azriel wrote:"I often move to the side, then to the other side, then I fall over drunken" Petty....

There should be a list of jokes ending in, "then I fall over." Very Happy

by Bluebottle Thu Sep 25, 2014 8:04 pm

Bluebottle wrote:The definition is definitely flawed.. because.. come on.. Tolkien is High Fantasy, and High Fantasy is Tolkien. Eerything written as high fantasy is written in the tradition of Tolkine. A definition that misses Tolkiien obviously misses the mark.

So it might be a formal definition, but it fails in practice.

Misspelling Tolkin two times in a row. (3 cheers

) I'm on a roll. Very Happy

by azriel Thu Sep 25, 2014 8:15 pm

Have you been at the seal lubricant again tonight Suspect

by Bluebottle Thu Sep 25, 2014 8:17 pm

Meh, just typing too fast really. Wink

And trying to make a joke of it.

by Radaghast Thu Sep 25, 2014 9:11 pm

Elthir wrote:The Owl in the Snow [now the official title] may be short (although that depends upon how long you watch it)... but I much prefer it to Jackson's Hobbit on several, possibly all, levels.

I prefer a bag of rocks to Jackson's Hobbit.

by Forest Shepherd Thu Sep 25, 2014 10:26 pm

Eldorion wrote: The only real competition LOTR could face comes from Harry Potter or, if you're high, the Narnia films,

From the first page. Laughing

Does Pan's Labyrinth count as high fantasy?

What about something like Willow?

by Radaghast Thu Sep 25, 2014 10:28 pm

Forest Shepherd wrote:
Eldorion wrote: The only real competition LOTR could face comes from Harry Potter or, if you're high, the Narnia films,
From the first page.

Don't know how I missed that.

by Forest Shepherd Thu Sep 25, 2014 10:31 pm

Bluebottle wrote:
azriel wrote:"I often move to the side, then to the other side, then I fall over drunken" Petty....

There should be a list of jokes ending in, "then I fall over."

I once found a google entry at my colleges library that read "the spirit catches you, and you fall down."
I thought it was hilarious, but then found out later that it was a book about epilepsy or some such in American Hmong cultures.

by Elthir Thu Sep 25, 2014 11:38 pm

Mrs Figg wrote: the Owl looks like a Barn-aby to me.

Heheh good one Mrs Figg... that made me screech when I first saw-whet.

Very Happy

Radaghast wrote: I prefer a bag of rocks to Jackson's Hobbit.

LOL... plus you can use a bag of rocks for smashing certain DVDs.

And walnuts!

by leelee Fri Sep 26, 2014 1:20 am

Excuse my being fantasy challenged, but what exactly is 'high' fantasy. What is the difference between that and some of the out there and complicated faerie tales that brothers Grimm collected. ( I told you I am challenged.

by Eldorion Fri Sep 26, 2014 2:41 am

Bluebottle wrote:The definition is definitely flawed.. because.. come on.. Tolkien is High Fantasy, and High Fantasy is Tolkien. Eerything written as high fantasy is written in the tradition of Tolkine. A definition that misses Tolkiien obviously misses the mark.

So it might be a formal definition, but it fails in practice.

Pretty much. I know some people who get really defensive about this definition (often they tend to be Robert Jordan fans Very Happy

), and it does run the risk of defining the genre in too specific terms. But the debt to Tolkien is undeniable (though that doesn't stop everyone), and you don't have to be copying Tolkien exactly to still clearly be operating in the post-Tolkienian sphere. Series like ASOIAF come to mind. Obviously it owes a ton to real world history, and introduces various elements that distinguish it from Tolkien and his clones, but it's still working within the bounds of a genre that was established with Tolkien in mind. And I think GRRM has been very up-front about this.

by Eldorion Fri Sep 26, 2014 2:44 am

leelee wrote:Excuse my being fantasy challenged, but what exactly is 'high' fantasy. What is the difference between that and some of the out there and complicated faerie tales that brothers Grimm collected. ( I told you I am challenged.

This is a really good point concerning the ambiguity in these definitions, though. I'm not that familiar with old school Grimm stories, but there are plenty of modern fairy tale-style stories like The Wizard of Oz or The Princess Bride that get into some fairly detailed worldbuilding (moreso in their book forms, I'm told). There's definitely fuzziness at the intersection of these definitions, just as there is with high fantasy and "sword and sorcery", where people will debate whether something has a wide enough scope to count as one or the other. Razz

{{{Phew, I avoided using the word "grey" again this time. Let's hope Dave and Elthir can't penetrate these encryption brackets, though...}}}

by Eldorion Fri Sep 26, 2014 2:48 am

Forest Shepherd wrote:
Eldorion wrote: The only real competition LOTR could face comes from Harry Potter or, if you're high, the Narnia films,
From the first page.

Glad you guys enjoyed it. Very Happy

Does Pan's Labyrinth count as high fantasy?

What about something like Willow?

Never seen Willow, but I wouldn't call Pan's Labyrinth high fantasy. In structure I think it's more like a fairy tale (though one could conceivably argue that it owes at least as great a debt to Narnia). But I think the more relevant point is that the fantasy elements aren't really what the film is about. It's a drama exploring the moral struggles of people living in Francoist Spain. I could argue that the amount of screen time devoted to the real world scenes means the film doesn't meet the worldbuilding criteria, but I kinda feel like that would be missing the point, since the whole movie is basically a parable. Something that I suppose is pretty common in the historical fairy tales,

by Tinuviel Fri Sep 26, 2014 5:24 am

So if Tolkien is very near to be being the definition of high fantasy, does the LOTR trilogy have a chance at ever falling under the prestigious name of literature? It's something I think about all the time. It has a definite modernist telling and so many thematic layers that I can't imagine it just being another story. In many ways, I think it floats in a weird no-mans land between literature and fantasy. It's beyond classic fantasy (considering it is the "classic" part) but won't ever be put into the literature sphere because of the "fantasy" part. Perhaps it belongs more so to the Epic category, with Homer and Virgil and friends.

by Radaghast Fri Sep 26, 2014 5:36 am

I wonder if Tolkien categorized—or would have categorized—his works as high fantasy, or any kind of fantasy.