[ 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

[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.