Protestants Dominating Christian Fiction

[Skarl]

Hey I'm looking forward to the movie, I just hope it won't be as changed as Lotr and realize it won't be as good as the book.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I don't think the changes were enough or large enough to rattle my cage. I think the positives and amazing delivery were enough to offset the negatives, which were few imho.

One weakness Tolkien had was his inability to describe a battle. I swear the one thing I hated about his books was that there'd be a "great battle" and he'd describe narry a scene or clashing sword, pretty much skipping ot the aftermath. Now I'm not looking for bursting intestines or the stench of punctured spleens, but man, it'd be nice to get SOME details? He kept those things out so much that it was great in the movies to fill in those blanks.

The Hobbit has less intense warfare than LOTR, so it won't be a problem.

I think it's sad that people overlook some of the amazing take-aways from the LOTR films. I think of a few moments where Jackson just SHINED...

Boromir laced with arrows as he fought to defend mary and pippin
Gandalf's demise at the bridge
Gandalf's battle with the Balrog, epic
the beautiful scene where Faramir goes off in armor to try to re-take Osgiliath from the orcs at Denethor's behest, the awesome pan flute music behind him and the speech he makes to Gandalf
Gandalf's talks with Frodo in Moria
The charming re-creation of Hobbiton and the populace
The "ride-out" scene at Helm's Deep and Gandalf's arrival at first dawn where light overwhelms darkness
The moving scene where Gimli reminisces about Galadriel's gift to him
She-Lob and the light of Elendil, the powerful music and memory
The scene where Eomer finds Eowen's tired body on the field and wails in grief
The awesome houses of healing scene with Aragorn with the gorgeous music in the backdrop, gives me goosepimples, man
The epic fall of the Eye and the victory before the Gate and the moment where they fear Frodo and Sam dead in bittersweet victory

The humor with Gimli and Legolas is hilarious, too.

I love these films. My wife does, too, and we've both read the novels. We actually went back and re-read them about 12 years ago, right before the films. We love both. We're freaks LOL

Hey I'm looking forward to the movie, I just hope it won't be as changed as Lotr and realize it won't be as good as the book.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

[Cjwinnit]

Goodness, it's "they're" not "their!!" I keep telling my 11-year-olds this in my class. It's killing meeeeee!

There there

 

[MKJ]

I don't necessarily mind changes to the story that relate to the different medium when making a movie from a book. That really has to happen. And I don't mind imperfections either, I don't think I'm overly demanding in that sense.

I am rather worried about the basics, really. Turning The Hobbit, which is a relativity straight-forward children's story, into three films makes me think that they will be adding an awful lot of padding, and I tend to think they are looking to make more money than a single film would make.

To me that doesn't bode well for the finished product.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I don't think the changes were enough or large enough to rattle my cage. I think the positives and amazing delivery were enough to offset the negatives, which were few imho.

One weakness Tolkien had was his inability to describe a battle. I swear the one thing I hated about his books was that there'd be a "great battle" and he'd describe narry a scene or clashing sword, pretty much skipping ot the aftermath. Now I'm not looking for bursting intestines or the stench of punctured spleens, but man, it'd be nice to get SOME details? He kept those things out so much that it was great in the movies to fill in those blanks.

The Hobbit has less intense warfare than LOTR, so it won't be a problem.

I think it's sad that people overlook some of the amazing take-aways from the LOTR films. I think of a few moments where Jackson just SHINED...

Boromir laced with arrows as he fought to defend mary and pippin
Gandalf's demise at the bridge
Gandalf's battle with the Balrog, epic
the beautiful scene where Faramir goes off in armor to try to re-take Osgiliath from the orcs at Denethor's behest, the awesome pan flute music behind him and the speech he makes to Gandalf
Gandalf's talks with Frodo in Moria
The charming re-creation of Hobbiton and the populace
The "ride-out" scene at Helm's Deep and Gandalf's arrival at first dawn where light overwhelms darkness
The moving scene where Gimli reminisces about Galadriel's gift to him
She-Lob and the light of Elendil, the powerful music and memory
The scene where Eomer finds Eowen's tired body on the field and wails in grief
The awesome houses of healing scene with Aragorn with the gorgeous music in the backdrop, gives me goosepimples, man
The epic fall of the Eye and the victory before the Gate and the moment where they fear Frodo and Sam dead in bittersweet victory

The humor with Gimli and Legolas is hilarious, too.

I love these films. My wife does, too, and we've both read the novels. We actually went back and re-read them about 12 years ago, right before the films. We love both. We're freaks LOL

personally I think I would also throw in when Aragorn charged all solo at the Black Gates, when Gandalf spoke to Pippen about the Undying Lands, when everyone bowed to the Hobbits at Aragorn's coronation.

on an interesting sidebar, the music in the Houses of Healing scene was written and sung, in Elvish, by Liv Tyler.

 

[inconsequential]

One weakness Tolkien had was his inability to describe a battle. I swear the one thing I hated about his books was that there'd be a "great battle" and he'd describe narry a scene or clashing sword, pretty much skipping ot the aftermath. Now I'm not looking for bursting intestines or the stench of punctured spleens, but man, it'd be nice to get SOME details? He kept those things out so much that it was great in the movies to fill in those blanks.

Agreed!

I've long thought it would be cool to have a special edition with all the fights rewritten by R.A. Salvatore. His past as a boxer really shows in his fight scenes.

 

[rusmeister]

Yes, so many abominations. And for one more, let me remind you of how another Maia was permanently killed (at the wrong time in the story) by a totally unexceptional human wielding a knife. Killed. Not simply unhoused from his physical form. Killed.

Sure, but he had forfeited his status completely and accepted his doom in this form and life. I think that's completely different from Gandalf/Olorin.

I should say that the charge of the Rohirrim at Pelennor in the 3rd flick to be an instance where Jackson really got it right or a minute. That was a great cinematic moment amid the disappointments.

Oh, and I think I DO understand Tolkien better than Jackson. It's a fair bet that Jackson doesn't even get who Elbereth ought to remind us of. And it was SO important that Gollum was completely responsible for falling into the Crack of Doom, that evil does itself in - they almost actually had Frodo PUSH Gollum in! I think if you know Christian theology well enough, anyone can get Tolkien better than Jackson does. Worldview is a real problem in expressing those deeply Christian works.

 

[Joseph Hazen]

The last post in this thread is really, really bizarre when you click on it to read, walk away before doing so, and come back later and have completely forgotten the topic.

 

[Memento Mori]

I don't necessarily mind changes to the story that relate to the different medium when making a movie from a book. That really has to happen. And I don't mind imperfections either, I don't think I'm overly demanding in that sense.

I am rather worried about the basics, really. Turning The Hobbit, which is a relativity straight-forward children's story, into three films makes me think that they will be adding an awful lot of padding, and I tend to think they are looking to make more money than a single film would make.

To me that doesn't bode well for the finished product.

I suspect it will feel like two trilogies in one, Bilbo's adventure on one hand and then all the happenings-elsewhere that weren't in The Hobbit but were going on. I'm expecting lots of Middle Earth politics and stuff about Saruman's corruption and Sauron's return, but I think Bilbo's story for its part will remain straight-forward and simple.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Now THAT is something I agree with, Meghan. I made the same comment to Kate..."why the heck does it need 3 movies?" I thought one 3-4 hour film is more than sufficient, 2 films at the very most. I'm sure $$$ is the main driver, but also I think Jackson, the film company, and the viewers are aware of the sad reality that, when this film is done, there are no more Tolkien movies to be had. Simarallion is not going to the big screen! I think people want to milk and savor these movies.

It's like the song "Into the West" sung by Annie Lennox. I adore that song. I was listening to it on Youtube the other day. I read one person's comment: "I love this song, but I always feel empty and sad at the end of it, because it takes me back to the end of Return of the King and the stark, depressing reality that there are no more LOTR movies left!" LOL

I think that is the way people feel about The Hobbit...end of the road.

I do agree with your sentiment, though. Hobbit was indeed more child-minded in authorship, shouldn't get TOO deep, and it should just be kept simple. I hope it'll be good. I'm too big a fan to stay away LOL

I don't necessarily mind changes to the story that relate to the different medium when making a movie from a book. That really has to happen. And I don't mind imperfections either, I don't think I'm overly demanding in that sense.

I am rather worried about the basics, really. Turning The Hobbit, which is a relativity straight-forward children's story, into three films makes me think that they will be adding an awful lot of padding, and I tend to think they are looking to make more money than a single film would make.

To me that doesn't bode well for the finished product.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

There are many themes in LOTR with regard to the ring. One key idea is that WE ALL have a touch of evil in us. If a reader thinks it's just evil begetting evil, he has missed the point. Frodo is the most pure, honorable, and strong person to be the ring-bearer. Look at how it seduces everyone from Isildur to Boromir to Smeagol to even Galadriel and Gandalf to a point who want no part of it. It's like a drug. And the idea is that ANYONE who is a sinner can succumb to sin. And in the end, even Frodo wants to keep it and is proven a wretched sinner just like everyone else. That's the whole point---humanity is fallen, badly. We all fall and have a dark side to be exploited. The real idea for me was that FRODO WAS NOT the hero in the first place, Bilbo was! Bilbo's mercy toward Gollum in the cave, in not slaying the poor, wretched creature, allowed God in his own way to use the nature of each to make things come out right. Bilbo is the hero.

It's apparent that you didn't watch the movie closely. Go back and watch it. I just did five times to double check what I already knew---they wrestle the ring between them and both fall at the same time over the chasm. Simultaneously falling in my book doesn't mean knocking someone over maliciously. It was two people selfishly, obsessively fighting over a drug, a happiness pill as Spock would call it. In the ROTK book, Gollum trips as he gloats over his prized ring, and in his celebration, loses his balance and falls. In the film, they struggle over the ring after Frodo loses a finger, in the book, there's no struggle post digit-removal. I say big deal. The moral is still there, Gollum still dies due to his obsession, Frodo still is shown to be as fallen as the rest of us, and Bilbo's distant mercy from The Hobbit tale made destiny come out in the favor of good. Do I agree with you that the struggle was unnecessary? Absolutely. Like you, I'd have kept it 100% true to the story in that regard.


And the point is that both Gollum and Frodo had the capacity for sin. Again---the whole point of it all. Was Isildur an evil man really? He bravely killed Sauron and fought for his kin and all humanity for that matter. But being a sinner, he fell. Boromir is a valiant man who gives his life for the hobbits and friends to the last swing of the sword, but he tries to take the ring from Frodo. Good man, sinner, falls. Even Frodo, whom we think is immune to it, changes his heart at the end. It's not a simpleton's tale of bad guy gets what he deserves. That is a misreading. I think Jackson got it better, Rus.

Some people just hate modernity and anything it has to offer. Batman's cowl is too pointy, Legolas' hair is a touch too shimmering, Tom Bombadil is absent tantamount to heresy, and there isn't enough singing about the Misty Mountains, Anakin's too short, Superman's curly-cue hair isn't there, there's always the haters who cast off aside anything "the moderns" try to do....

As to Peter Jackson's "worldview," respectfully, do you even know what that is? You assume a lot. The man has given a great deal of money to charity, including over $10 million dollars to save a church in New Zealand from demolition, saving it. Does this instantly prove he's a convicted Christian? Of course not. But don't presume to judge the man's heart and religious beliefs based on your own disapproval of a movie ending. You don't like any movies or tv anytime anywhere anyway, Rus?

Sure, but he had forfeited his status completely and accepted his doom in this form and life. I think that's completely different from Gandalf/Olorin.

I should say that the charge of the Rohirrim at Pelennor in the 3rd flick to be an instance where Jackson really got it right or a minute. That was a great cinematic moment amid the disappointments.

Oh, and I think I DO understand Tolkien better than Jackson. It's a fair bet that Jackson doesn't even get who Elbereth ought to remind us of. And it was SO important that Gollum was completely responsible for falling into the Crack of Doom, that evil does itself in - they almost actually had Frodo PUSH Gollum in! I think if you know Christian theology well enough, anyone can get Tolkien better than Jackson does. Worldview is a real problem in expressing those deeply Christian works.

 

[GenetoJean]

I never even thought about LOTR as having Christian undertones. Of course I am a bit Aspergerish and dont ever get the underlying meanings of a book, and I do mean ever. I hated it when I was in any literature class and a teacher asked, "What did he mean by that?"

 

[ArmyMatt]

actually gurney, Sam is the honorable, pure, and strong one, and not only in his friendship with Frodo. he is the only one who willingly gave the Ring back to a previous owner, and did so because he knew it was for the greater good. in my opinion, Sam is the true hero of the novels, and he succeeds where Frodo (and everyone else) fails.

 

[Mary of Bethany]

I don't think the changes were enough or large enough to rattle my cage. I think the positives and amazing delivery were enough to offset the negatives, which were few imho.

One weakness Tolkien had was his inability to describe a battle. I swear the one thing I hated about his books was that there'd be a "great battle" and he'd describe narry a scene or clashing sword, pretty much skipping ot the aftermath. Now I'm not looking for bursting intestines or the stench of punctured spleens, but man, it'd be nice to get SOME details? He kept those things out so much that it was great in the movies to fill in those blanks.

The Hobbit has less intense warfare than LOTR, so it won't be a problem.

I think it's sad that people overlook some of the amazing take-aways from the LOTR films. I think of a few moments where Jackson just SHINED...

Boromir laced with arrows as he fought to defend mary and pippin
Gandalf's demise at the bridge
Gandalf's battle with the Balrog, epic
the beautiful scene where Faramir goes off in armor to try to re-take Osgiliath from the orcs at Denethor's behest, the awesome pan flute music behind him and the speech he makes to Gandalf
Gandalf's talks with Frodo in Moria
The charming re-creation of Hobbiton and the populace
The "ride-out" scene at Helm's Deep and Gandalf's arrival at first dawn where light overwhelms darkness
The moving scene where Gimli reminisces about Galadriel's gift to him
She-Lob and the light of Elendil, the powerful music and memory
The scene where Eomer finds Eowen's tired body on the field and wails in grief
The awesome houses of healing scene with Aragorn with the gorgeous music in the backdrop, gives me goosepimples, man
The epic fall of the Eye and the victory before the Gate and the moment where they fear Frodo and Sam dead in bittersweet victory

The humor with Gimli and Legolas is hilarious, too.

I love these films. My wife does, too, and we've both read the novels. We actually went back and re-read them about 12 years ago, right before the films. We love both. We're freaks LOL

Yes on all the above! No matter how many times I watch Boromir's dying scene, I will still cry.

Also, add Aragorn's speech to his men before the Black Gates. "there may come a day . . . . . but it will not be THIS day". Love it!

Mary

 

[Mary of Bethany]

actually gurney, Sam is the honorable, pure, and strong one, and not only in his friendship with Frodo. he is the only one who willingly gave the Ring back to a previous owner, and did so because he knew it was for the greater good. in my opinion, Sam is the true hero of the novels, and he succeeds where Frodo (and everyone else) fails.

Yes! I've always felt that it was Sam, in his humility and love, who was the ultimate hero of the tale.

Mary

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

And what if Bilbo had slain Gollum in the Hobbit? Would LOTR have turned out the way it did? The point Gandalf makes about Bilbo's mercy being paramount was not put in there by accident. Foreshadowing, my friend, foreshadowing, with a touch of destiny.

And I agree about Sam. Yes. Each character is there for a reason. But we don't know if Sam would be any better than Frodo had he been the ring-bearer, right? He had it briefly in ROTK after the She-lob incident, etc. He didn't carry it from the Shire to Cirith Ungol. Sam is a good person, but a muffed-up sinner like the rest of us in the end.

actually gurney, Sam is the honorable, pure, and strong one, and not only in his friendship with Frodo. he is the only one who willingly gave the Ring back to a previous owner, and did so because he knew it was for the greater good. in my opinion, Sam is the true hero of the novels, and he succeeds where Frodo (and everyone else) fails.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Thanks, Mary. Praise God, someone else in here likes the movies other than me!!!

I told my wife about the posts in here. She ADORES the films. I can't repeat what she said about a few posters' opinions in here! LOL

She keeps asking me why I go to message boards. Her usual comment is "those people are nuts. Why do you go in there!?"
My reply: sixth grader-like shoulder shrug LOL

Yes on all the above! No matter how many times I watch Boromir's dying scene, I will still cry.

Also, add Aragorn's speech to his men before the Black Gates. "there may come a day . . . . . but it will not be THIS day". Love it!

Mary

 

[rusmeister]

I DID watch the movies - very closely, several times.

I do NOT say that Jackson got everything wrong or excluded everything of importance from the stories. Of course he got some things right. What I am speaking to is his own unawareness of the holisticity of Tolkien's work, that changing the story "to make it more cinematic ("screenworthy", etc)" was a right he took naturally. If you watch the extended DVD extra stuff (I assume you did) then you see that he even seriously considered having Sauron reappear in that superhuman form depicted in the struggle of the Second Age to fight Aragorn. (I say he, but I am aware of his cohorts' roles, Kennedy and so on as well.)
They really do NOT understand the philosophical impact of what they do. The story, even though created by an imperfect man, coming from a holistic mindset, is bound to be superior to anything coming from a fragmented mindset. He would verily take the story of Christ and change it for better cinematic effect if he thought he could get away with it.

What greatness he has as a story-teller, aside from his native cleverness and organizational skills, is merely that of a pygmy standing on the shoulders of giants. While there is nothing wrong with that, there IS something wrong with the hubris of thinking you can do better.

 

[ArmyMatt]

And what if Bilbo had slain Gollum in the Hobbit? Would LOTR have turned out the way it did? The point Gandalf makes about Bilbo's mercy being paramount was not put in there by accident. Foreshadowing, my friend, foreshadowing, with a touch of destiny.

And I agree about Sam. Yes. Each character is there for a reason. But we don't know if Sam would be any better than Frodo had he been the ring-bearer, right? He had it briefly in ROTK after the She-lob incident, etc. He didn't carry it from the Shire to Cirith Ungol. Sam is a good person, but a muffed-up sinner like the rest of us in the end.

but he was better. he also bore the Ring, and he willingly gave it back to Frodo, something no other character could do.

and I wasn't saying anything about Bilbo

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I suspect it will feel like two trilogies in one, Bilbo's adventure on one hand and then all the happenings-elsewhere that weren't in The Hobbit but were going on. I'm expecting lots of Middle Earth politics and stuff about Saruman's corruption and Sauron's return, but I think Bilbo's story for its part will remain straight-forward and simple.

Just saw the film "The Hobbit" with my best buds.

My gosh....like my gosh...

I went into the film wondering if it was going to be more of the same as with Lord of the Rings - which I enjoyed and yet it never really hit home with me...and I only decided to see the film after another highly recommended it. And when I saw "The Hobbit" - my goodness, that movie was simply beautiful...and apart from it almost making me tear up a couple of times, it hit home to the point that I felt the "Lord of the Rings" series was far less impressive. And real themes when it comes to loyalty/rising to the occassion.

The same goes for themes such as not being so focused on your own family/home that you forget others don't have one - and may need help in fighting for theirs so that they can do the things you take comfort in.

One of the most amazing things about the film was the FilmScore. There's one Beautiful song that I can't get out of my mind after seeing the movie, entitled The Misty Mountains [Richard Armitage & The Dwarf Cast] . Very haunting.... but enchanting. The baritone lyrics captured the tragedy, loss, and rootedness of the dwarves better than any dialogue could have. Best theme song I've heard for a film in a long time...

Lyrics:

Far over the Misty Mountains cold
To dungeons deep, and caverns old
We must away ere break of day
To find our long forgotten gold.

The pines were roaring on the height
The winds were moaning in the night
The fire was red, it flaming spread
The trees like torches, blazed with light

​

The Hobbit - An Unexpected Journey: Misty Mountains Song - YouTube

Richard Armitage and the Dwarves are great, and the tune is out of this world, being deep, dark, and majestic and expressing an importance that’s moving. Tolkien would have been proud. The song sells the whole point of the film, setting up the deep meaning the quest holds for Thorin. It’s just so… Dwarvish. This will probably be remembered as the signature song for The Unexpected Journey. The song’s melody is a cornerstone to the Hobbit soundtrack, reappearing throughout.

The scene where they're singing the song literally capitvated me - and reminded me of how Negro Spirituals were sung by Blacks in order to cope with the great loss they experienced - as well as to convey messages for others to remember and never forget what happened, be it in maintaining hope or never losing sight of the tragedy behind what they lost. If I didn't know any better, the Dwarve tune itself/how they sung it in the film seemed to come directly from chants I've heard in Byzantine Liturgy. One individual I came across noted that his wife (who passed her music history classes) thinks its closer to straight Celtic music, but conceded that the beginning sounds a bit like chant. I think its a hybrid sound, with the score composer taking sounds from both genres. Others feel it was in the style of European folk songs, just sung very low with some harmonies being hummed in the background - and for reference, one can look up especially English/Irish/Scotch/American folk songs. While the music is more folkish in many ways, the droning vocals sing mournfully of faded glory but are still boastful and proud of that glory at the same time. It's no coincidence many of the Dwarves in the Hobbit have Scottish accents. The loss of Erebor is the kind of thing that can best be rued in a cursing brogue and drowned in a glass of scotch.

Ultimately, I'd definately have to go with others noting that Gregorian chant is probably the closest genre to Misty Mountain music that was in the movie - and for those with a Catholic background, it seems to be a big deal for them in how it stood out.

On the music sung by the dwarves, the scene itself seemed a pitch-perfect dramatization of Tolkien’s original scene, where the dwarven company and Gandalf the Grey, having thoroughly put out unwilling host Bilbo Baggins with a raucous dinner party, quiet down and begin to sing.

They came back with viols as big as themselves, and with Thorin’s harp wrapped in a green cloth. It was a beautiful golden harp, and when Thorin struck it the music began all at once, so sudden and sweet that Bilbo forgot everything else, and was swept away into dark lands under strange moons, far over The Water and very far from his hobbit-hole under The Hill…
…The dark filled all the room, and the fire died down, and the shadows were lost, and still they played on. And suddenly first one and then another began to sing as they played, deep-throated singing of the dwarves in the deep laces of their ancient homes… As they sang the hobbit felt the love of beautiful things made by hands and by cunning and by magic moving through him, a fierce and a jealous love, the desire of the hearts of dwarves. Then something Tookish woke up inside him, and he wished to go and see the great mountains, and hear the pine-trees and the waterfalls, and explore the caves, and wear a sword instead of a walking-stick. (Tolkien. 43-44.)
​

A lot of people, amazingly, have been giving it bad reviews - and I was literally shocked by it. Others saying it wasn't as good as the other films - and yet, when I saw it, it made me realize that others looking down upon it had placed more hype on it than necessary and expected to see more of the same with LOTR - instead of enjoying it for what Tolkien intended with a story that's really deep. And as another noted best, The Hobbit is a lot better once you realize it’s a war movie - a film talking about the Rise of the Great Dark you'll see in the Future Triology (technically past with LOTR) and yet seeing real life battles for others who were essentially victims of war/greed - sent into DIaspora and trying to maintain a heritage. In many ways, I was going back and forth between comparing them either to American Indians or the Hmong (of Laos, who were scattered all over the world after being abandoned by the U.S to the Communists - just like the Dwarves were abandoned by Elves).

In many ways, it reminded me of what occurred with Refugees and other displaced people groups - something I'm very passionate on....and to see the Dwarves/how epic and personal they were got my attention alot. Some people were shocked to see that some of the dwarves were actually pretty good looking (as they did in making Fíli and Kíli being portayed the way they did) and had a rugged yet elegant feel to them. But again, their best trait was how relatable you felt with them.

As another said best:

What makes them so attractive is their innate tragedy, as I wrote:

Elves are perfect. Dwarves decidedly imperfect. It seems no contest.

And yet, it’s the imperfections that make them so compelling. Angels are boring; watching people with flaws, who make bad decisions, is where real drama comes in. Dwarves make incredible things — whole cities carved out of the insides of mountains, weapons and crafts of surpassing beauty, mines tunneling deep into the earth with medieval technology. But in true dramatic fashion, it’s their very greatest gifts that prove their downfall. The accumulated wealth from dwarf craftsmanship lures raiders, none deadlier than the great dragons who, like Smaug of “The Hobbit,” pillage dwarf strongholds and seize their treasure. And their deep mines awake fell powers like Moria’s Balrog, which rise up from the depths to wreak havoc. Even in the best case scenario, when the dwarves don’t die, they inevitably turn inward and cut their underground cities off from the rest of the world.
​

In “The Hobbit,” Tolkien describes the elven haven of Rivendell, run by Elrond (of mixed elven and human blood, but someone who lives as an elf and is “noble,” “fair,” “strong,” “wise,” “venerable” and “kind”), in idyllic terms: “His house was perfect, whether you liked food, or sleep, or work, or storytelling, or singing, or just sitting and thinking best, or a pleasant mixture of them all. Evil things did not come into that valley” (Tolkien, John Ronald Reuel, and Douglas Allen Anderson. The Annotated Hobbit: Revised and Expanded Edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2003. 94.). That sounds very charming to visit — but also boring. Give me an adventure in the ruined Mines of Moria or the vast halls of the Lonely Mountain any day!
​

Best movie of 2013 I've seen thus far...and truly, Dwarves rock and I'm glad they gave them great presentation - even better than that of the elves, as they felt the most relatable of the Middle Earth People..