Thorin & golden light
Need some Wet Thorin on my dash 4 / 4
The picture of Thorin I am staring at today
I was just thinking… Does… Does Kili ever say Fili’s name in the entire trilogy? I can’t recall one scene where he does. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Z is for the BreeZe
Thorin is always standing in this soft breeze that is not hitting anybody else…must be generated by all that majesty 😄
Thorin A to Z
Thinking of expanding my request options to include moodboards and banner images (basic ones for now - I’m not practised enough for advanced edits just yet) etc alongside gifsets.
Could incorporate neo-khuzdul into them, if its single words or a translation has been done (I’m not confident enough in my use of the Dwarrow scholars translation tool to be able to do sentences yet).
Is there an appetite for those kind of things?
One of the post series I’m going to be doing is ‘members of the company of Thorin Oakenshield’, and I’m looking for inspiration! So let me know;
What is your favorite moment for each dwarf? The ‘them in a nutshell’ shot?
What are your favorite moments for each dwarf from each of the films?
A is for Arkenstone
Starting a new theme today - Thorin A to Z
Find a man who looks at you like Thorin looks at the Arkenstone…really I just want Thorin to look at me like that 😍
If anyone has any pointers for a (download) source for the bonus features for An Unexpected Journey, I’d appreciate it.
First of all, it’s not like I don’t have my own criticisms in this regard, so it’s not that I automatically reject everything that might be said about Jackson’s Tolkien adaptations. But this doesn’t mean I don’t reject a lot of what’s being said about it.
The Lord of the Rings is in this respect a separate matter entirely, so I choose not to deal with that here. With that said, I am so very over the negativity still being aimed at The Hobbit trilogy especially, regarding the adaptation. Some of the things people say make me feel like they haven’t actually read the book at all.
I do agree that it could have gone easier on comedic relief, for example. But I think much of the reasoning for this, and for much of what the critiscism is aimed at is a fundamental fact that sadly goes overlooked a lot of the times.
The Hobbit is not The Lord of the Rings. The world it is set in and the narrative and chronological connections it has to TLOTR make this hard to ignore, I agree. But the fact itself remains unchanged. The Hobbit was written as a children’s tale, Rayner Unwin assessing the target audience between 5 and 9 years old.
One might not concsiously pay attention to it when immersed into the story, because we have loved it throughout our lives without feeling like we have lost something in our connection to it as we ourselves age. So it easily becomes a smooth narrative landscape reading it now, but if you were to pay attention to the storytelling itself, you would begin to notice the many ways it is unlike The Lord of the Rings.
One of those things being big jumps in the story. Now they’re here, now they’re there and two weeks have passed. You may also notice that most of the dwarves who make up the majority of the company don’t have any dialogue in the book. But still it tells us about Bilbo finding the One Ring, and characters such as Tom Bombadil and Beorn, and takes us on a great journey and brings us along to the Battle of the Five Armies.
I personally have three copies of The Hobbit in two languages (one being ‘pocket-sized’, one the annotated version) and if you excluded the illustrations, introduction/preface etc and used a regular layout in terms of page and type size the story itself would total less than 300 pages. Which is not a lot. Especially given how much it covers.
When it comes to how this affects a film adaptation… I hope you can agree that it would be strange to watch a film that cuts from one scene to the next which may be chronologically weeks apart, with no exposition whatsoever. Or much of the screen time being devoted to characters majority of whom never speak or are only distinguished from other characters by what color cape they are wearing. Would that have been the film you wanted to see? I assume not. It’s that people reject the way in which the films differ from the book without thinking why.
Tolkien’s work is not some run of the mill formulaic YA fantasy that’s written in a way that if you’ve read 5, you’ve read all of them. It’s not without reason that he himself believed it would be impossible to adapt his works for the screen. And I seriously doubt that what was possible in terms of visual effects was the main reason for it. It was always about structure and complexity and the impossible depth the world he created possesses.
A popular complaint is that a whole trilogy was made out of one not-that-long book. Well, do people think that it would have somehow been better without the added detail and exposition and with all the jumps. My guess is that they would have been just as unhappy with that because staying completely true to the book would have been been very underwhelming, especially given the bar that The Lord of the Rings trilogy set.
Now, coming back to another complain in terms of a major difference that I mentioned at the beginning of this post. The Hobbit is not The Lord of the Rings. In more ways than a few. It is at its core and anventure story told to children. And I saw the meaning because my brother fit into that age bracket when the An Unexpected Journey premiered. This was a story told on the screen in a way that is accessible to people that the story was originally intended for, not that it ever meant to exclude anyone older. But it’s approachable to children in ways that LOTR is not. Of course there are those that are exceptionally mature and beyond their years, but we’re talking about most children.
My mother read The Hobbit to me when I was 6 and then when I was 8 it was the first full length book I read on my own. The trilogy does reconnect me with my young self and I think that it was always about that. And I don’t think the Professor would disagree with me on that.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but I do feel some of the critique is missing the mark and is a bit unjust. Especially as this is something that has brought the younger generations to read and discover Tolkien for themselves. These films are made with much love and I think at the very least deserve informed critique which still allows us to appreciate them for what they are.
It’s official, Bilbo Baggins has stolen my heart.
He’ll have to share with a few other people though tbh.
Ah shoot I’m getting dragged into The Hobbit and LOTR again
I don’t accept.
Somebody: The Hobbit Trilogy was bad.
What I want to say: Although at this time I could bring up the difficulties Peter Jackson faced with pre filming time requirements from the company as well as being forced to make three movies instead of two; at this time Ifeel it is more important to point out that the overall theme of the Hobbit was kept entirely in place while giving more dimension to the characters which is especially important because dwarrow in Tolkien-verse are an allegory for the plight of the Jewish people at the time. It also allowed for growth on the theme of dwarvish culture, specifically that Iglishmek, dwarvish sign language exists.
What I say: I think Dwarves are sexy.
Visually Stunning? Check!
Intricate and well told plot? Check!
Memorable Characters? Check!
Like… here’s the thing. I think the whole Tauriel/Kili thing was corny and dumb. HOWEVER, the fact that they didn’t even kiss once is messed up. If you’re gonna do a forced hetero romance, the least you could do is commit to it fully. That shit still would have been tragic whether they kissed or not.
Ahh I would want to be a background Elf!!
Or a background hobbit…🤔
I’ve officially been doing these for over a year. Well, let’s have a look at last month’s movies, shall we? I know I’m really late with this one again, I just didn’t have the energy before. College requires a lot of concentration in the last few weeks of the year.
Peter Pan (1953): Some of the concepts of Neverland are neat and Hook is a fun villain, but the racism… yikes.
Zambezia (2012): Bird movie that is kind of enjoyable despite obviously being quite cheap. Full Movie Thoughts over here.
Cats & Dogs (2001): Just a fun spy/action movie about animals. I don’t like how all cats are portrayed as evil, though (something the sequel would later luckily fix). The CGI is dated but at least expressive. Good puppetry, too.
The Hobbit trilogy (2012-2014): I’m going to be honest, I’ve been too harsh on these in the past. Yes, they aren’t objectively too great, but I still can find a lot of enjoyment in them if I stop nitpicking for a second, something I didn’t exactly do during my last watches. They do have some real tonal issues, though (it keeps flip-flopping between comedic and more childish to epic and grand like the LotR trilogy). CGI is okay but didn’t age too gracefully despite not even being that old. I like the warg redesigns. My favorites out of these three are An Unexpected Journey and The Desolation of Smaug, with Battle of the Five Armies being closely behind. Just too much action (like 45 minutes) for a fight that didn’t even take up a chapter in the book.
The Adventures of Milo and Otis (1986): On the surface, this is just a fine hour of entertainment for young children with some cute animals. But what went down behind the scenes…yikes to that, too. Tons of animal abuse and animals even dying. Full Movie Thoughts over here.
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001): One of the best movies of the best trilogy ever made. I can gush over this for hours, honestly. Currently also in process of watching all the behind-the-scenes features for the trilogy.
Lady and the Tramp (1955): A pretty basic yet charming movie about two dogs of very different walks of life that happen to fall for one another. I’m not sure if I buy the romance between Lady and Tramp, though. Animation is good however.
That’s it for this month. Not too many watches, but I’ve been busy. Let’s look forward to next month’s posts!