It’s also an important plot point in how long they have been robbers.
Refresh my memory…
That’s just mentioning an actual height, not making an issue of it, the way Holm’s Napoleon rants about actually being taller than some other rulers but always getting the …you know.
Granted, having rewatched part of it, I’m not sure Dinklage would be down with the Me and My Shadow bit.
I agree, I just thought it was funny. You can’t talk about Time Bandits and be serious, I’m pretty sure that’s against the law.
Now that I think about it, Time Bandits is pretty much Holy Grail with better acting and special effects.
I can’t say what Dinklage would be thinking, but the comedy in that scene, as well as the rest of Time Bandits, didn’t depend on them being dwarfs.
I think that the only part that actually made their size actually important was that they were of a similar size to the child. The movie may have played differently if it were a group of 5’10 adult men dragging a child across time and space.
Hijack, but I always loved Time Bandits.
I’m unclear on understanding the point here?
The comedy of Snow White with Doc and company didn’t depend on them being dwarfs.
To large degrees both used the extreme short stature as ways to identify otherness. Neither were meant to be same as humans. In both they could have just as well been CGI ogres with mild rewriting.
It seems to me that the major difference is merely how popular and well known one has been over multiple generations compared to the other. Heck I loved Time Bandits and have seen it more than once and I can’t remember any of the dwarfs’ names.
And if the name of the movie was “Kevin and the Six Time Traveling Dwarfs”, then that would be comparable.
But it’s not, so they are not.
So no problems with the original Disney movie and any remake if the title was just “Snow White”?
And if the original that it was based on was titled as such, then maybe so.
I’m not Dinklage, so I couldn’t say what his thoughts on the matter would be. I’m just pointing out the differences that I see between the subject matter of the thread, and an attempt at equivalence to something else entirely.
Of course, Snow White has its own problematic bits, in that it is certainly implied that her beauty is tied to her skin color, but that’s a whole different topic.
You clearly haven’t seen the film recently, you can’t get more mythological than the Time Bandits, they are servants of the Supreme Being.
Yep. Great film.
Yeah- not only similar in height, so they accepted him, but they were childlike in many ways also.
Mythology general implies that it is based on historical beliefs and myths, not ones made up out of whole cloth for a piece of fiction.
Though, TBH, if you left off the dig about “You clearly haven’t seen the film recently”, then I’d actually agree with you on that, as that would be a funny line, keeping in spirit with the movie.
…and I’m sure you can cite the actual myths that feature dwarfs as the universe repairmen of a singular Supreme Being.
Is there any real difference?
Yes. There is.
Sure- here is the documentary: Time Bandits (1981) - IMDb
Time Bandits has a Mythology in the film.
You can make up a mythology in a work of fiction. My cite:
https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Tolkien_Mythology
Mythologies are- pretty much by definition- works of fiction. True, legends are based- perhaps tenuously- on fact.
You can use that definition of mythology if you choose to, but it’s not the more accepted definition.
my·thol·o·gy
/məˈTHäləjē/
a collection of myths, especially one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition.
And a myth is
myth
/miTH/
noun
plural noun: myths
a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
So, dwarves exist in traditional stories, they belong to cultural traditions.
Dwarves as the caretakers of the universe under the supreme being do not.
So, if you are choosing to use a non-standard definition of mythology, then that’s fine, it’s a perfectly understandable definition that you can choose to use when describing things made up for the purposes of creating backstory of a fictional work, if you point out that that is the definition you have chosen to use.
But, taking someone to task and making the comment that they are ignorant of a piece of work because they are not using your non-standard definition is a bit much, wouldn’t you agree?
It looks to me like it’s consistent with your “standard definition” of mythology to talk about a mythology that is made up as part of a fictional world, just as fictional worlds can have their own religions, cultures, languages, or histories, that are made up by the creators of those worlds but are “real” or “organic” within the context of those worlds.
(I don’t know how relevant this is to Time Bandits specifically—it’s been too long since I’ve seen it.)
No.
DrDeth was replying to me, it’s my usage of mythological that is relevant. And that’s the “related to the collection of myths of a people, concerning the origin of the people, history, deities, ancestors and heroes.” sense, not the “related to pervasive elements of a fictional universe that resemble a mythological universe” sense. Because that’s the sense I used it in.
Since when has Time Bandits been a part of stories that belong to a traditional culture?
Anyway, point is, calling someone out for being ignorant of a work because they are not using your particular interpretation of a definition seems a bit non-conducive to actual useful discussion.