The Hobbit.

[Legato Endless]

This isn't much of a joke; the Disney corporation is one of the groups most responsible for extending copyright terms in the United States.

Not sure how this practice has anything to do with protecting creators' rights for limited times, but there you go.

The Republican Study Committee published an excellent report on the state of modern copyright law and its lack of harmony with the original intended purposes. Worth a read if you haven't done so. See also CGP Grey of youtube who gives a decent introductory breakdown. In any case, the last thread on this was locked, so we should probably drop the topic before it explodes like it's prone to.

[Zrak]

I do know what it means. But if we want to stick to it rather then my parody, let's go back to the whole "burn everything before 1970's because I am a curmudgeon" argument.

Oh, yeah, I didn't mean to imply that that argument was tenable in any way, I was just saying we should use the right term to describe what's wrong with it. I just get unreasonably cantankerous about it with regard to reductio ad absurdum since I'm unbelievably sick of seeing it erroneously invoked as a fallacy when it is a perfectly legitimate form of argument.

[Themrys]

In other words we should destroy all works created before say 1970, and never, ever, mention them again?

(I actually prefer that to modernize them).

Actually, making half of the dwarves female wouldn't have been "modernizing". It would have been an interpretation. It is repeatedly stated in the movie, and I think Tolkien wrote it somewhere, that female and male dwarves look very much like each other, at least to the other races.

Including more human women in the battles in LotR would not have been as easy, as Eowyn's problems arise from the fact that she is discriminated against for her sex.

However, in the more or less gender-neutral (since the female gender does not exist) plot of the Hobbit, one would not have to change a single thing about the plot to include more women.
Tauriel could have been included without the love triangle. (The strangest thing was that none of the other elvish guards were women, if I remember that correctly. That makes no damn sense with a woman as their leader, unless she inherited the position, which Thranduil implies is not the case.)


Someone mentioned "Huckleberry Finn" ... which was AGAINST racism, and would not make sense without racism in it, and also was set in a certain time in the real world. Which "The Hobbit" is not.

[Avilan the Grey]

My point is that I don't understand the need to modernize it. You can make it "gender neutral" (but shouldn't you add a number of non-cis dwarves as well then?) but WHY?

I seriously don't see the point.

Now to clarify, I am against "modernizing" if you still claim to be faithful to the original.
If you want to make a version of the Hobbit set in a prison, where all the dwarves are reimagined as the white supremacist gang, that is fine. If you want to remake Romeo and Juliet as a lesbian couple in the Dublin suburbs, that is fine too.

But as long as you try to say that you are doing "the original" story... Just film the damn thing. Be very conservative with your changes.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Actually, making half of the dwarves female wouldn't have been "modernizing". It would have been an interpretation. It is repeatedly stated in the movie, and I think Tolkien wrote it somewhere, that female and male dwarves look very much like each other, at least to the other races.

Yes point of fact you can always presume one or more of Thorin's company is in fact female even in the books... because you cannot tell the difference. Its the beards... Yeah its evidently canon, by a smidge.

Which of course makes it rather meaningless for a general audience except as a joke.

[Yora]

We were watching the movie yesterday and unlike the previous one, I actually quite liked it. All that gross-humor and toilet jokes from the first one are absent and the outdoor scenes that were obviously shot indoors no longer look like they were taken from 70s Star Trek episodes.
Both my dad and me thought it an odd choice to cram all the content from the forest in the first half and dedicate the entire second half to Laketown and the Dragon. Both Beorn and the spiders feel rushed through, more as if they had to cover them because they were in the book, and not so much because they wanted to film the scenes. I would assume the extended DVD will have significant added scenes in this part of the movie.
The barrel ride could have been half the time and the scenes with the dragon didn't really need to be that long. They are cool and look great, but sometimes less is more. Unfortunately I had to watch the german dub, since everything is dubbed here, but even so the scene with Bilbo and Smaug talking reminded me a lot of Koh from Avatar. The way Smaug speaks is very close.

I also liked that Laketown was given a Baltic Sea inspired visual style, since that's right where I grew up. It makes it a distinct culture from the others seen in the movies and seems quite appropriate given that it's a port town in winter.
And I had no idea Stephen Fry is in that movie.

[Da'Shain]

So I just saw Hobbit 2: Desolation Boogaloo, and I had a few problems with it. Apologies if these have been brought up before, but I didn't see them after a cursory search and honestly their accumulation kind of ruined this movie for me. A lot of my friends (and critics) said things along the lines of "this movie fixes everything that was wrong with the first one", and I actually go the opposite way of "this movie's fanfiction inserts caused a butterfly effect that ruined it for me".

I legitimately enjoyed parts of it, but I came out of it feeling completely unsatisfied, so here goes:

Spoiler

Show

First, and foremost, this movie's title is no longer really appropriate. This is not the Hobbit's story. At all. Despite actioning the source material up a whole lot (which I'll get to later in the rant), Bilbo's role is actually smaller, less important and less impressive than it is in the book. Over the course of this movie's narrative in the book, Bilbo has several major accomplishments:

• Fought off and essentially wiped out the spiders, saving his companions, on his own.
• Infiltrated the Elven kingdom, survived for weeks (months?), and engineered the escape of his companions with none the wiser, on his own.
• Stood and riddled with Smaug, keeping the wyrm intrigued and tricking him into showing off his body (and the small chink in his armor), on his own.

However, in the movie, each of these three is chipped away at in the interests of making sure we understand how TOTALLY BAD@$$ other characters the movie decides to focus on are. The spiders? Bilbo kills a few but then is sidelined as the elves come in and use their Jedi powers to kill the rest. The barrel ride? Thrown together without much thought and immediately seen through by the elves, and only works because of the plot convenient orcs and the dwarves' choreography powers. Smaug? Immediately begins lecturing Bilbo about what he's doing there and traps him there, while Bilbo only knows to look for a chink because of the story of how Bard's ancestor loosened a scale.

These would be fine if they were accompanied by some character growth or arc a la the first movie and Bilbo, say, finding his courage or overcoming his prejudices or anything. Instead, about the only character moments Bilbo has are the ones about how the Ring is already twisting him, oooOOOoooOOo! He's just one of the guys, which would also be fine were the movie not nominally about him.

Second, the aforementioned plot convenient orcs. Instead of Gandalf and the dwarves amusing and charming a reluctant Beorn into helping them, there's just "Oh. There's orcs about. I hate orcs. I'll help you." Instead of the barrel scene being a showcase of Bilbo's burgeoning burglary skills, it's instead only pulled off because BOTH the orcs and elves see right through it at the same time and start fighting over who gets the dwarves. And not only that, but the orcs have somehow gotten all the way to the very gate of the elven kingdom without being detected, which would be enough of a problem to accept given the elves' canonical (in the movies) heightened senses and competence, but throw in an illusory enchantment on the woods and the fact that a smaller party of dwarves barely made it miles in without being picked up by an elven patrol and it becomes almost enough to break suspension of disbelief (I mean, the suspension that isn't already broken by the ridiculous to the point of comical action scenes).

Which is then utterly broken by the orcs just magically showing up on the roofs of Laketown. You know, the town the dwarves had to be smuggled into in full fish barrels and still got seen? The town with an active city guard that is in the middle of a Lake?! How the hell did these orcs just get there? Are orcs suddenly as hyper-competent as elves? Certainly doesn't seem that way considering how incredibly easily Legolas and Tauriel cut through them (although I suppose that might be due to them being protagonists, not elves).

And then, of course, there's the masses of orcs gathering at Dol Guldur, which segues nicely into my next major complaint: I don't care about Sauron in these movies. Don't give one ... care. Sauron had his trilogy as big bad guy. It was awesome. But that's it. He's done. We know precisely what happens. We know where the One Ring goes. We know that Sauron moves to Mordor. We know that he's busy gathering power for LotR time. And having multiple scenes devoted to "Oh no, it's Sauron! And he's gathering power!" means taking time away from the actual interesting tale of a group of people whose fates the movie-going public does not actually know against several factions they haven't seen before. We don't need three Hobbit movies with a quarter of their runtime devoted to telling us how totally screwed the world is, guys, Sauron's coming! We know. Get back to the actual interesting story that has multiple threats from both the good, the evil and the neutral alike as opposed to one big bad guy who absolutely will not be dealt with in this story.

I've already mentioned the absolutely ridiculous choreographed fight scenes, which honestly have me laughing and rolling my eyes at the absurdity of them. They have no tension at all; the characters are so skilled that even when Fili (or Kili, whichever) gets hit with an arrow I know it's just to drum up sympathy, not because the character actually screwed up or became overwhelmed. Surprisingly, I actually somewhat enjoyed the climactic scene with them leading Smaug around the mountain, but I'm that kind of moviegoer who sees dwarves floating on rivers of molten gold and immediately gets taken out of a movie going "COME ON."

Alright I have more complaints but they get more and more petty. And despite how I'm tearing apart the movie I actually did somewhat enjoy it. But these are exactly the kinds of problems I was afraid of with stretching the book out and adding both appendix and original material in: it's going to stop making sense and lose what made the original work great.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by MLai
Well, in the book [Eowyn's] mood is a lot more fatalistic. That is, she's thinking more like a samurai warrior who intends to die for his shogun, whether the shogun values/acknowledges his sacrifice or not.

The movie turned Eowyn into a feminist champion chafing under patriarchal shackles and relishing the chance to sneak out onto the battlefield and decapitate the enemy boss, because it's prophesized don't you know.

The book is much less anvilicious about it. Eowyn thinks like a woman of her time/place. She doesn't think of herself as a woman or a feminist. She thinks of herself as a spear of the Rohirrim.

All true enough, although in the book Eowyn did yearn for battle and honor, something not traditionally allowed for the women of the Rohirrim. But she certainly didn't think of herself as some spunky feminist countercultural rebel or whatnot. She was a daughter of kings, and wanted to die in a fitting manner.

Originally Posted by Themrys
*modernize the book by making it totally different!*

Originally Posted by Avilan the Grey
My point is that I don't understand the need to modernize it.

I have to agree that I can't fathom the concept of "modernizing" an older work--especially one with such a vibrant tapestry of language and history, developed with such care and which has long been loved exactly as it is.

This is like saying you'll "modernize" a thousand-year-old live oak by cutting back all those heavy, spreading branches, stripping off the ferns sheathing its bark, carefully sandblasting every leaf and then spraying the whole thing with gaudy brass paint, because brass is "modern" and of course it'll be better that way. The end result may certainly fit some crude definition of "modern," but it will be a sad, tattered wreck beneath the fresh-dripping paint, the very essence of what made it so lovely scoured away and lost.

If someone is so deeply disturbed by what they see as gender disparities, racial bias and corrupted patriarchal authority structures in the entirety of the Middle-Earth mythos, then rather than insisting that the entire opus should be rewritten to suit their own personal concerns, they should instead devote some genuine creative effort to imagining, writing and refining their own epic story, set in their own meticulously created world and serving as the perfect embodiment of their own literary and social philosophies.

Then, of course, they'll have to let their work stand on its own merits, rather than retrofitting someone else's masterpiece.

[Yora]

If you watch the Hobbit, it's not a movie version of the book.

It's a new story based on the same premise.

I quite liked the appearance of those two shifty guys in the tavern at the start. I think they are supposed to be two characters from the Lord of Rings, which didn't make it into the movie and got reused here.

[Remmirath]

All true enough, although in the book Eowyn did yearn for battle and honor, something not traditionally allowed for the women of the Rohirrim. But she certainly didn't think of herself as some spunky feminist countercultural rebel or whatnot. She was a daughter of kings, and wanted to die in a fitting manner.

Which seems frankly good enough to me, and makes much more sense in character and in universe than the whole full-scale rebel thing. Typically people who rebel do it for some reason, and because of what they are already feeling, and Éowyn already does that. No need to exaggerate it; it comes across well enough already.

I have to agree that I can't fathom the concept of "modernizing" an older work--especially one with such a vibrant tapestry of language and history, developed with such care and which has long been loved exactly as it is.

This is like saying you'll "modernize" a thousand-year-old live oak by cutting back all those heavy, spreading branches, stripping off the ferns sheathing its bark, carefully sandblasting every leaf and then spraying the whole thing with gaudy brass paint, because brass is "modern" and of course it'll be better that way. The end result may certainly fit some crude definition of "modern," but it will be a sad, tattered wreck beneath the fresh-dripping paint, the very essence of what made it so lovely scoured away and lost.

If someone is so deeply disturbed by what they see as gender disparities, racial bias and corrupted patriarchal authority structures in the entirety of the Middle-Earth mythos, then rather than insisting that the entire opus should be rewritten to suit their own personal concerns, they should instead devote some genuine creative effort to imagining, writing and refining their own epic story, set in their own meticulously created world and serving as the perfect embodiment of their own literary and social philosophies.

Then, of course, they'll have to let their work stand on its own merits, rather than retrofitting someone else's masterpiece.

Quite. I suppose that really is the essence of my problem with adaptations in general -- if one is going to go to that much trouble, why not come up with something new and add to the genre and the body of works available, rather than changing something else to suit you?

If you watch the Hobbit, it's not a movie version of the book.

It's a new story based on the same premise.

I quite liked the appearance of those two shifty guys in the tavern at the start. I think they are supposed to be two characters from the Lord of Rings, which didn't make it into the movie and got reused here.

It's similar enough that it is clearly not a whole new story, though, so I'd say it falls into the category of "based upon". I'd rather they'd just done a whole new story based on the same premise, but that's not what they did.

This whole inbetween area bother me the most. An adaptation aiming to be faithful, I can see -- putting aside my own preferences -- and creating something merely inspired by large aspects of something else I can also see. Changing a good many things but keeping all of the characters and names and everything the same just does not sit right with me.

[HamHam]

Changing a good many things but keeping all of the characters and names and everything the same just does not sit right with me.

What does it matter.

I seriously don't get it. Being the same as the book is not an inherent virtue.

[Avilan the Grey]

What does it matter.

I seriously don't get it. Being the same as the book is not an inherent virtue.

But why then film it at all?
Why not just put "inspired by" in the title and then do whatever you want?

[Tiki Snakes]

What does it matter.

I seriously don't get it. Being the same as the book is not an inherent virtue.

Look at it this way.
I can accept that The Hobbit - Desolation of Smaug is an okay movie in it's own right.

But there's also this book called "The Hobbit" and I think that would make not only a good movie, but a better movie than the trilogy we're getting along similar lines.

The value of a more faithful adaption in this case, to my mind and according to my own tastes, is that it would also be a better story. More focused, more intimate, more character driven and more full of genuine wonder.

But alas, not this generation.

[HamHam]

But why then film it at all?
Why not just put "inspired by" in the title and then do whatever you want?

That doesn't make for a catchy title.

[Legato Endless]

What does it matter.

I seriously don't get it. Being the same as the book is not an inherent virtue.

Most people would disagree. Faithfulness to the "spirit" of the work is kind of a big deal.

When you buy into an established property, there is an implicit trust that what you get will contain the elements you appreciated in the original. If it doesn't, you've basically been lied to, often for easy money from a producer to lazy or incompetent to craft a solvent work based on new independent content. See Remmirath's above post. If a work is changed to lose all of what made the original attractive, it's simple logic you wouldn't like it more.

Now, I'll agree blind fidelity isn't a good idea, considering the limitations of each medium and what makes them tick…but the general consensus on this thread isn't really arguing blindly against all changes, they're just aggrieved by what they think were various idiotic changes to varying degrees. Me on the lower end, Avilan much higher. I dislike when the plot makes less sense. Unless you like equally all adaptions you've ever seen, I would imagine you actually do understand. It just doesn't bother you because opinions are what they are. And I sort of doubt you like all adaptions equally, because that would make commenting on this thread at all somewhat puzzling.

[HamHam]

Most people would disagree. Faithfulness to the "spirit" of the work is kind of a big deal.

When you buy into an established property, there is an implicit trust that what you get will contain the elements you appreciated in the original. If it doesn't, you've basically been lied to, often for easy money from a producer to lazy or incompetent to craft a solvent work based on new independent content. See Remmirath's above post. If a work is changed to lose all of what made the original attractive, it's simple logic you wouldn't like it more.

Now, I'll agree blind fidelity isn't a good idea, considering the limitations of each medium and what makes them tick…but the general consensus on this thread isn't really arguing blindly against all changes, they're just aggrieved by what they think were various idiotic changes to varying degrees. Me on the lower end, Avilan much higher. I dislike when the plot makes less sense. Unless you like equally all adaptions you've ever seen, I would imagine you actually do understand. It just doesn't bother you because opinions are what they are. And I sort of doubt you like all adaptions equally, because that would make commenting on this thread at all somewhat puzzling.

That second link provides a far more interesting and legitimate critique than all the griping about how many legs Smaug has and how the Nazgul aren't supposed to have tombs and whatever other nitpicking has filled most of this thread. Having a difference of actual meaning is something worth talking about.

However I also think even that is wrong because it's missing the complete picture. It might turn out that the final act won't deliver on any of this, but I see all of Thorin's epic heroism as a set up for his fall. And the outcome will rely on Bilbo's moral character at that point.

In the book we don't have a lot of reason to like Thorin, so he's actions at the end are just kind of eh. In the movie we are the people of Laketown, being deluded into believing in this insane dream because he believes in it. So when it all goes wrong it will hit that much harder.

[warty goblin]

However I also think even that is wrong because it's missing the complete picture. It might turn out that the final act won't deliver on any of this, but I see all of Thorin's epic heroism as a set up for his fall. And the outcome will rely on Bilbo's moral character at that point.

In the book we don't have a lot of reason to like Thorin, so he's actions at the end are just kind of eh. In the movie we are the people of Laketown, being deluded into believing in this insane dream because he believes in it. So when it all goes wrong it will hit that much harder.

This has been my take on the movie; that there's some things about it I dislike, but am willing to ignore for the time being because I strongly suspect they're setting things up for a really excellent third part. But then I make a point of not caring about how faithful an adaptation is, so maybe it's just me.

[Legato Endless]

Having a difference of actual meaning is something worth talking about.

However I also think even that is wrong because it's missing the complete picture. It might turn out that the final act won't deliver on any of this, but I see all of Thorin's epic heroism as a set up for his fall. And the outcome will rely on Bilbo's moral character at that point.

In the book we don't have a lot of reason to like Thorin, so he's actions at the end are just kind of eh. In the movie we are the people of Laketown, being deluded into believing in this insane dream because he believes in it. So when it all goes wrong it will hit that much harder.

Agreed. Film!Thorin is far more likeable than Book!Thorin ever was. And no, this film certainly doesn't do anything on the scale of hideous perversions of meaning like the alterations the director of Grave of the Fireflies made. A film which is best enjoyed when misinterpreting the director's point.

[Zrak]

Including more human women in the battles in LotR would not have been as easy, as Eowyn's problems arise from the fact that she is discriminated against for her sex.

However, in the more or less gender-neutral (since the female gender does not exist) plot of the Hobbit, one would not have to change a single thing about the plot to include more women.

Considering the discrimination Éowyn faced, do you really think female adventurers are particularly common in a work from the same setting? As I argued before, given the fact that both take place in the same setting, I think The Hobbit has more excuse than most works that lack a female presence. Again, it's a terrible trend, but I don't know how viable it is to criticize an individual work with the weight of the entire trend, especially given the setting of something like The Hobbit.

Someone mentioned "Huckleberry Finn" ... which was AGAINST racism, and would not make sense without racism in it, and also was set in a certain time in the real world.

Yes, but your argument was that any [edit: book or movie] would be made "better in a moral sense," by removing the racism or sexism from it. Do you agree that this premise was overbroad and untenable?

That second link provides a far more interesting and legitimate critique than all the griping about how many legs Smaug has

Although, one does wonder what happened to a couple of them between the first and second film.

[HamHam]

Yes, but your argument was that any work would be made "better in a moral sense," by removing the racism or sexism from it. Do you agree that this premise was overbroad and untenable?

No one has been arguing that. It has been a straw man this entire time.

[Legato Endless]

Although, one does wonder what happened to a couple of them between the first and second film.

The Boxed Trilogy Extended version will contain an episodic interquel where we see Thranduil fight Smaug who has been leading the Northern Wyrms in an attack on the south. The Mirkwood Sovereign will tear off the great Calamity's forearms, after the King under the Mountain dares to burn his Elven features. The dragons will be routed, but Thranduil will have lost his entire host, pushing him toward abject isolationism.

[Zrak]

No one has been arguing that. It has been a straw man this entire time.

I took the claim "Removing sexism and racism from a book or movie may not make it 'better' as a work of art, but better in a moral sense" to mean that removing the sexism and racism from a book or movie will make it "better in a moral sense." Aside from expanding "book or movie" to "work," which was an oversight I will edit my post to rectify, I'm not really sure how you contend I made a strawman of the argument.

The Boxed Trilogy Extended version will contain an episodic interquel where we see Thranduil fight Smaug who has been leading the Northern Wyrms in an attack on the south. The Mirkwood Sovereign will tear off the great Calamity's forearms, after the King under the Mountain dares to burn his Elven features. The dragons will be routed, but Thranduil will have lost his entire host, pushing him toward abject isolationism.

I was going to say "sadly, it will be the best part of the movie" before I got to thinking that isn't really fair, since this would probably be the best part of any movie. I want to see Thranduil rip off an arm with a well-timed hair-flip.

[HamHam]

I took the claim "Removing sexism and racism from a book or movie may not make it 'better' as a work of art, but better in a moral sense" to mean that removing the sexism and racism from a book or movie will make it "better in a moral sense." Aside from expanding "book or movie" to "work," which was an oversight I will edit my post to rectify, I'm not really sure how you contend I made a strawman of the argument.

Having the characters struggling against the racism of the setting does not make the the work racist, quite the opposite. This should be obvious.

[KillianHawkeye]

I have to say that my favorite part of this movie was when Bilbo puts on the ring in the forest and is suddenly able to understand what all the spiders are saying to each other. That abrupt change from hissing and chittering noises to menacing whispers was just so well done, and it was SUPER creepy!

[dehro]

That doesn't make for a catchy title.

you may be dismissive and facetious about it, but it is a perfectly valid point of view.
when the title is "the hobbit" and the purpose is that of telling the book in a different media, it is not a weird request that one doesn't stray too much away from the content of said book and doesn't add rather random plotlines that serve no purpose within the confines of the book or to, say, fill gaps in the the book that would make the translation in another media unintelligible.
Since what happened here is precisely that the director has taken it upon himself to add entire chapters of plot that really serve no book related purpose and which removing would take away nothing from the main plot, saying "you might as well have acknowledged that it is only broadly inspired by a book from the get go" really isn't that unreasonable a thing to say.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

I just got home from the theater, and I have to say

Spoiler

Show

This movie was AWESOME!

Is it the book? God no! But was it a good movie? Of course. None of JRR Tolkien's works are even remotely filmable, so I never even considered they would be the same.

My only complaints would be that the Romance was silly, and that I was disappointed that Bard is going to kill Smaug with a giant Crossbow instead of an arrow. Beyond that, I'd say PJ made another A+ Movie.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Legato Endless
Most people would disagree. Faithfulness to the "spirit" of the work is kind of a big deal.

Those are both excellent reviews, especially the second one. Reading these reminds me why I don't plan to see the first two ever again. I'll only watch the third if I hear how much unlike the first two it turns out to be.

Originally Posted by warty goblin
...I strongly suspect they're setting things up for a really excellent third part.

I used to think I was a hopeless optimist, but you've gone and set me in my place.

Originally Posted by HamHam
I seriously don't get it. Being the same as the book is not an inherent virtue.

Just one comment on this. If you're going to take on the film adaptation of a book as enduring and widely loved as The Hobbit, it should go without saying that you need to approach it with profound respect.

Unfortunately, no one seems to have said this to Peter Jackson. Apart from all the other adjectives I find myself using--absurd, nonsensical, unnecessary, overblown--the film treatments are simply disrespectful to the book in virtually every way.

Originally Posted by Tiki Snakes
The value of a more faithful adaption in this case, to my mind and according to my own tastes, is that it would also be a better story. More focused, more intimate, more character driven and more full of genuine wonder.

Exactly so. All that the book is, and that the movie diametrically is not.

Originally Posted by Zrak
I want to see Thranduil rip off an arm with a well-timed hair-flip.

If I ever start having a sig, this is instantly on the short list of contenders.

.

[Evandar]

I really enjoyed the two movies. The book is a classic, but there were a few questionable narrative choices that might not have translated well into a movie.

I'm willing to suspend my disbelief over Smaug being unable to kill the intruders. I didn't mind a lot of Bilbo hiding pre-barrel scene being cut out. I thought Smaug was done quite brilliantly (and decided he wasn't stupid, so much as just well aware that he is essentially invincible).

Dwarf-Elf romance felt unnecessary, but then I didn't mind it either. I seldom feel romance is necessary in movies because it often develops so quickly and spontaneously I can't bring myself to think it's meaningful..

On the other hand, there could be anything down his trousers.

[Zrak]

Having the characters struggling against the racism of the setting does not make the the work racist, quite the opposite. This should be obvious.

Ah, I see, we were reading "removing sexism and racism" differently; you appear to be reading it as "removing prejudicial attitudes the work itself holds and/or presents in a positive light," while later comments in the same post ("I have enough sexism to cope with in real life, I don't want it in fantasy movies") led me read it as "removing all depictions of prejudicial attitudes from the work."

If your understanding is correct, then the question becomes whether or not The Hobbit is really demonstrably sexist.

[Palanan]

Zrak--I think you may be conflating comments from HamHam and Themrys. That quote in parentheses, about sexism in real life, originally came from Themrys.