( Bad Taste does not suffice.) Making parodies &c. It just demands taste, and that is a rare commodity. For one can also take a book and make differences to the story in order to make an equally great movie: e.g. The anguish only comes when the surficial aspect has been used to replace the inner aspect that has been there, but has then been removed, like in Tolkien adaptations. I am a great admirer of the nurturing aspect of surficial beauty myself. The same goes for the ”superficial” beauty of the movies, which in turn reveals great depths to one who has patience to make careful observations. Smaragd wrote: ↑ Wed 10:07 pm The reason why I find 'childish' fairytale movies so relaxing is that the presence of archetypal ideas are present in a sort of nurturing way, and it is like being home. Even when there would be some very rough and idiotic parts to the movies, it is like the coarse physical world just having those not so refined forms in its forming the lower vessel.

The reason why I find 'childish' fairytale movies so relaxing is that the presence of archetypal ideas are present in a sort of nurturing way, and it is like being home. But indeed the movies partly do aim for audience that is not as wise as children are in their potential. I must point that although we were talking about childishness of the movies and how it sort of belonged to it, being that the book also had more emphasised fairytale aspects, I meant the fairytale aspect in no pejorative meaning, but belonging to very deep part of story telling acknowledging that children are not idiots. The precision of nerdsmanship and knowledge of lore and the writers stance is much appreciated.

Even though Tolkien indeed wrote to children, he also was clear in his opinion that children were no idiots, but an audience who deserved serious, well-weighed, intelligent stories.

Koirien Kalevala by Mauri Kunnas