[ SECRET POST #3365 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3365 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09. [repeat]


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 070 secrets from Secret Submission Post #481.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - posted twice ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

10. http://i.imgur.com/OMsJXJA.jpg

[(Anonymous)]

FLUFFY FEET YES.

I haven't thought about it in a long time, but I also pictured hobbit feet as being much fluffier than they were in the movies when I first read the books. I think on re-reads my mental image of them got overwritten somewhat though.

Still, the movie feet are pretty cute too, what with being oversized and all (and oversized feet are like, ALWAYS cute.)

[(Anonymous)]

That fanart is really cute :)

[(Anonymous)]

My beef is that their feet in the movies look so artificial and they're also too big. There's nothing to suggest hobbit feet are bigger than average. They should be a normal size. I did think there wasn't enough hair on their feet, but then it felt like the movies did everything they could to "pretty up" the heroes in every way they could. Less hair on their feet, dwarves without beards, etc.

[diet_poison]

Dwarves without beards?

I'm not even a big Tolkien fan but that just sounds so...wrong

[(Anonymous)]

That's basically what Kili is (which is sad because Aiden can grow a very nice beard). And Bofur only has a mustache. And Thorin's beard is actually rather short for a Longbeard. The "hot" dwarves have minimal facial hair. The dwarves who are not hot are given much more respectable beards.

[(Anonymous)]

IDK, pretty much every dwarf in the movies had a beard except Kili who is canonically barely an adult.

But yeah there was a bit too much prettying up and making characters look overly normal. Not that I really blame them because they were making blockbuster movies and needed a large projected audience for the movies' financial model to be successful (there's a snowball effect of "if you want good SFX you need a high budget and in order to get a high budget you need to project making a lot of $ off of ticket sales and if you want to make a lot of $ off of ticket sales you need to spend x amount of $ on SFX and location and action etc etc) and creating accessible character designs was an easy way to increase that.

[(Anonymous)]

Thorin and his folk are from the Longbeards. They are described in The Hobbit as having beards long enough to tuck into their belts. While some of them do have beards, several would be bald by dwarf-standards (as set up in HoME).

I can agree that some changes need to be made but there's also a point where you have to honor the source material. While Thorin's beard isn't tucked in his belt, he's definitely got one. But he also doesn't look much like a dwarf. Most of them don't, especially in close-ups. This can take away from the story because the story is supposed to be about dwarves, not humans. There's a disconnect when you're told that you're supposed to be looking at dwarves, you've been given Gimli as your archetype, and yet the "hot" dwarves you see don't look very different from Aragorn or Eomer. It really feels like the filmmakers shied away from the fact their leading characters were dwarves.

[(Anonymous)]

I thought they would have bigger feet than a similar-sized human. Kind of like puppies have big feet. But not as grody as their fake feet in the movies.

[(Anonymous)]

http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Misconceptions#Hobbit_feet

[(Anonymous)]

Well, I always like to see fanart that depicts the characters differently from the movies (not that I disliked the movie designs, I just like seeing different ones for variety's sake) and being imaginative about little details like that are definitely up there on my list of things I enjoy seeing.

[(Anonymous)]

*bagginshield memories from 2014 rising...*

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, but not all the way up their legs like in the picture. But def thick and fluffy and they keep it clean.

[(Anonymous)]

And maybe they have little foot-combs!

[(Anonymous)]

I always wished the Hobbits had more foot- and foot-hair-derived cultural phrases, like the one "may the hair on your toes never fall out!" from The Hobbit.

I think I once read a fic where "tenderfoot" was a big insult for hobbits, because only baby hobbits had soft foot soles, so it meant you were calling someone a crybaby who can't withstand normal activities (like walking barefoot).

[(Anonymous)]

Maybe they style their foothair and/or put on airs about who has the thickest foothair and having extra-hairy feet is taken to be a sign of virility of something.

/I love this kind of stuff

[mimi-sardinia.livejournal.com]

I have a faint memeory that there was something in the LotR books about a hobbit who did comb his foot-hair.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah the Hobbit feet were one of the few things about the LOTR movies that I don't think they did a good job on, visually. They could have easily been made to look a lot more non-human, with a lot less effort than the filmmakers and actors actually went through to have those feet. I certainly never pictured them being so bald, I always pictured them as being really furry, like animal feet.

[(Anonymous)]

Well maybe the secret has nothing to do with Bagginshield but the picture sure is reminding me of what a blast I had with that ship.

It also turned out some REALLY good fanfic - a lot of them better than the movies added material, actually.

This might be sort of off topic but for people who are more well-versed in Tolkien

[(Anonymous)]

So, in the appendices of LOTR it's said that no one knows exactly where hobbits came from, but they seemed to be related to humans.

So I was wondering, does other external material from Tolkien say anything about if hobbits are just a sub-species of humans and therefore aren't really a separate race, or if they're a totally different race, like the dwarves, and created by a Vala like the dwarves rather than Eru/God (like, since the dwarves were created by Aule, could the hobbits have been created by Yavanna? Since they love their earth and farms and food and gardens so much, and their shortness and bare feet seem to fit as being a signal for being "close to the earth"...and Yavanna was a huge overachiever anyway given how many lifeforms she created...)

Re: This might be sort of off topic but for people who are more well-versed in Tolkien

[(Anonymous)]

They are definitely not made by Yavanna. The Ents are her answer to Aule's dwarves. From the parts of HoME that I have read (and I haven't read absolutely everything but I have read a fair bit), hobbits are pseudo-human.

The thing is, the creation of the dwarves was basically retelling Abraham and Isaac. Whether a creature has a soul or not is a pretty big deal. Tolkien wrestles with the notion of whether the eagles, ents, and other sentient creatures had souls the way elves and humans do. Dwarves are granted souls when Aule repented of their making. So, it doesn't really go into the mythology Tolkien was creating to have hobbits be something other than human, and if they were, they wouldn't have souls.

But, it's complicated by the fact that Tolkien was creating his legendarium long before he included hobbits. So, I'm not sure he totally knew what to do with them. But, from the Valar perspective, the Valar were not allowed to create sentient creatures without Eru's permission. Yavanna does ask to create the ents. After what happened with the dwarves, I think she would be wary of repeating his mistake with hobbits, and I don't think she connected to human/elf-like creatures as she did plants.

Also, hobbits are very human, and I personally think it's too simplistic to think of them as her creations for being pastoral. There are tales of the hobbits coming from the east (the same as the elves and humans came from) and not all of them were pastoral in nature.

[(Anonymous)]

I always figured if it was significant enough to point out it's probably like underarm hair or pubic hair.

[mimi-sardinia.livejournal.com]

I have a problem with that picture, it make it look like Bilbo has fur only on the front of his legs. Logically, if the fur ranged right up the leg like that, there would also be some on the back as well. Maybe it would be thin in the pit behind the knee and end just above the ankle, but there would be some on the backs of the legs.

I also don't think it would be quite as thick as that looks. As I phrased it above, it looks like fur, not hair. Now maybe if it was as thick (as someone said in comments) underarm hair, though perhaps with coarser hairs, I could see that working.

I did however feel the movies could have done the hair a bit thicker, but I also acknowledge they were trying to appeal to the majority of audience visual preferences.

[(Anonymous)]

IDK I feel like furry feet would've looked a lot more appealing than semi-hairy feet.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, the book describes it as being thick and curly, like the hair on their heads. So, not furry, but probably closer to furry than the hairy back look we got in the movie.

As for size... I always pictured hobbits as having feet a few sizes larger than human average, but not unnaturally large like in the movie.