fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2541 ]

[ SECRET POST #2541 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2541 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 040 secrets from Secret Submission Post #363.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

You know I am at the stage of yelling STFU at everyone who gets bitchy and complains that the movie is bad.

I haven't seen it yet (no, I don't mind spoilers), but I absolutely refuse to let fraggers turn me off my beloved fandom.

And I like Martin Freeman as Bilbo. I think he's great.

I feel the same way.

I've seen the movie, it was fun. And that's what's important to me. Fun.

Tauriel was all right. I honestly don't have any ideas of how she could have been "improved" because it's not that important to me. I could have done without the romance angle, but she's not a bad character.

Smaug is awesome. I have never seen Benedict Cumberbatch act or never heard him speak, all I know is what I've seen from fangirls and the haters. But I decided to put all that aside to give him a chance. His voice acting is great, perfect for Smaug. Really gave the old dragon depth.

Martin Freeman, don't know much about him, but he makes a fine Bilbo.

I'm seriously thinking of seeing it again.

A close friend (the one who shares my OTP, which came from her fanfic) said that all the Tauriel/Kíli aspects of the movie could easily be shrugged off as either a youthful crush or him trying to rile her up.

But mostly I totally agree that as long as the movie is fun, everything else... Well I can sit back after I've seen it and look at the criticisms and see which I can objectively agree with, while still remaining a fan of the movie because I can separate my enjoyment from my critical analysing.

(I'm also a Doctor Who and Transformers fan who love TF movieverse even though Michael Bay is crap, and has liked the Eleventh Doctor run, even though I see what people mean about Steven Moffat's handling.)

ayrt

Kili does seem to have a boyish crush on her, which seems to amuse her, and she does end up caring for him. Which could mean just exactly that.

It's the Legolas angle that I didn't care for, and for a creepy moment I thought Thranduil was going to have feelings for her, too, instead he just spouts this "lesser elves, don't lead Legolas on," stuff.

That's the right attitude, imo. We know these movies are going to be flawed, but why not have fun with them? I haven't seen the later Who stuff, but the Transformer movies were fun.

Me too. I liked The Hobbit enough to ask for the extended edition for Christmas. I thought Martin Freeman was adorable. Am I not supposed to like him, is he a bad person somehow?

At first I was side-eying the addition of an original character to expand on the Xena!Arwen concept (I think it was a secret here, haha). But when I read on their reasoning for including Tauriel, I accept it. Mirkwood elves are glossed over in the books, right? And they did their research in naming her. She sounds awesome. Maybe I just have a soft spot for lowborns who prove themselves. Also, kudos for creating a character for young girls watching the film, as someone said earlier in this thread.

Re: Freeman, I personally don't see him as a bad person, he just has a tacky sense of humor sometimes, exacerbated by the fact that his delivery is very dry and British, so it's easy to take what's intended as a joke seriously. In poor taste sometimes, but not a terrible human being.

I bought the EE and let Mum wrap it up as a present (we do that - anything that comes in from about mid-November gets wrapped for Xmas).

I also like the idea of a kick-ass female character (that doesn't go remaking the canon females). The only things about her that erk me is the Kíli romance aspect and her hair colour.

Kíli I can shrug off and think "LOL, cute. Didn't happen in my AU.", and hair colour... well as much as I am a Fëanorion fangirl, even I know it's a bit petty to get upset because she has a hair colour I associate with my favourite son of the Silmaril maker (i.e. Maedhros - he's a redhead).

Yes, the hair-colour! It bothers me a bit too, even though I like her otherwise.
Maybe she just decided to dye it because she's in her rebellious phase and that colour will get reactions. ;)

Oh yes! Red hair would get a reaction in Mirkwood, considering the upper class are Sindar of whom the elder ones probably lived in Doriath! That's like, a kid from a conservative Christian family going goth and blatantly wearing pentgrams! XD

I personally thought her name was ever so slightly unimaginative, but I doubt the majority of the movie-goers cares. And I have to laugh at the thought that she was one of those kids who shared her name with about half the class. :D
I think adding a female character was a good move in regards to little children watching the movie. Not all cool characters have to be men. And children probably don't give a damn if she was in the original story or not.

As for Martin Freeman, he often seems like he doesn't care if he says some unfortunate things. Doesn't change the fact that I really like his Bilbo.

I just came back from it, like, an hour ago? And I think it's fucking awesome.

All these purists out there who are "It's NOT LIKE THE BOOK." No shit, purists, Bilbo is an unreliable narrator in canon. He changed his story and that's in canon. (c.f. first and second editions of the novel, The Hobbit.) How much else did he not bother to mention? There and Back Again is him telling his version for his people that makes him the total hero of everything.

Also, it's kind of the version for kids. That's going to leave a lot of bits out.

Also, Tolkein explicitly and specifically wanted this to be an English-language mythos, like the ones the Germans had. A defining element of myth is that it gets told and retold and changed and reinterpreted and fit to what people need and want when it's being retold. That's the whole point of a mythos. Screaming "changing it is wrong!!" is missing the entire point.

god, purists.

I want to marry your comment and have its babies. (Sorry if that sounded creepy.)

I totally agree with you there.

One, no, the movie won't be the same as the book! The was good for cartoon movies like Rankin Bass did, but something seriously dramatic like these movies are.

Bilbo's unreliability is a side effect of having to rewrite to accommodate LotR, but I do love the way Tolkien did it, saying the the first editions of The Hobbit were the original version Bilbo wrote, with his false story about the Ring.

And it's been a personal headcanon of mine that what was in the book was Bilbo's sanitized-for-children version of events.

From what was in the LotR DVD appendices (DVD extras), Tolkien always mourned that Britain lost their native mythos. The Normans conquered Britain and brought in a whole stack of French tales that may have been set in Britain (the Arthurian legends), but they were still French.

And I honestly find the comment I see around a bit that people think of these movies as PJ's fanfic of Tolkien. The big difference is that I don't think it's a bad fanfic.

Actually, the Arthurian legends ARE British in origin. The French extensively overhauled and added to them, but in origin they were most definitely British. Arthur and several of his knights (some of whom have different or differently spelled names in the original stories) appear in Welsh (i.e. native British, as opposed to Anglo-Saxon) mythology quite a number of times---check out the Mabinogion for example. The (original) Welsh Arthur and his knights are a world apart from the courtly French stories, they're far more involved with magic and the fairy mythos of the British Isles than they are with tournaments and Courtly Love. Arthur and his knights also appear in Geoffry of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britannae, which, while it's obviously not to be taken as a literal history of Britain, nonetheless amounts to at the very least a collection of traditional British folklore and legend that predates the Norman Invasion (though old Geoff himself did not, being born about 40 years later.)

Well then maybe the part that Tolkien did not like is that the original stories were so buried under the courtly French stories, and stuff like the Mabinogion was obscure at the time he was wishing there was more English mythology.

This would be my guess. The Mabinogion isn't that well-known to most people (I only know about it because of my fascination with ancient British history and folklore), so it isn't a wide-spread mythos like the French retellings are. not to mention that Tolkien also wanted to incorporate elements from Anglo-Saxon mythology into his stories.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #2541 ]

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

purists and haters to the left: you are missing the point.

Re: purists and haters to the left: you are missing the point.

Re: purists and haters to the left: you are missing the point.

Re: purists and haters to the left: you are missing the point.

Re: purists and haters to the left: you are missing the point.

Re: purists and haters to the left: you are missing the point.