We have detected that cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please enable cookies to ensure the proper experience.
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 51 to 73 of 73
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    In-game
    Posts
    3,735
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    ...because when Tolkien was writing a story for kids in the 1930s he already knew he'd be turning it into an epic in the 1950s and made sure everything lined up neatly? Wow, that sure was clever of him!
    I am just glad that he did do it
    If I ever entered two World Wars I doubt I'd be much of use at anything after that.
    "I should call that a heavy loss, if it was not a wonder rather that in his great age he could still wield his axe as mightily as they say he did, standing over the body of King Brand before the gate of Erebor, until the darkness fell."
    http://gladdenhistory.wikispaces.com/

  2. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Al. View Post
    This is a warning try to discredit my reputation again and you will pay for it.
    Your reputation as a Tolkien scholar, or as a petulant child? Either way, give it your best shot slugger
    “If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went.”
    - Will Rogers

  3. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Al. View Post
    This is a warning try to discredit my reputation again and you will pay for it.
    Utter hilarity.

    More please!
    Shakuru scored a devastating hit on Retarius for 8,094 Scottish damage to morale.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    In-game
    Posts
    3,735
    I dont see the need to argue about it, Lotr and the Hobbit take place in the same world. Simple as that.
    "I should call that a heavy loss, if it was not a wonder rather that in his great age he could still wield his axe as mightily as they say he did, standing over the body of King Brand before the gate of Erebor, until the darkness fell."
    http://gladdenhistory.wikispaces.com/

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ USA
    Posts
    48
    This is interesting. This argument is a representation of both definitions of the word "sequel".

    The Oxford English Dictionary defines sequal:

    noun

    a published, broadcast, or recorded work that continues the story or develops the theme of an earlier one:

    the sequel to Home Alone
    The Prisoner of Zenda and its sequel


    something that takes place after or as a result of an earlier event:

    this encouragement to grow potatoes had a disastrous sequel some fifty years later

    We have one argument that's stating that The Lord of the Rings is a direct continuation of The Hobbit whereas we have another argument that's stating that The Lord of the Rings continues the theme from the Hobbit but is not a direct continuation.

    Based on what I was reading in this thread I was inclided to agree that The Hobbit was looked upon by Tolkien as a building block that does not directly correlate to The Lord of the Rings. However, based on the following, I cannot do that even if The Hobbit does not fall in line with Tolkien's mythology.

    In the Prologue of The Fellowship of the Ring, "Note of the Shire Records" it states, "That (the Red Book of Westmarch) most important source for the history of the War of the Ring was so called because it was long preserved at Undertowers, the home of the Fairbairns, Wardens of the Westmarch. It was in origin Bilbo's private diary, which he took with him to Rivendale."

    I am referencing this to show that the intention of the majority of The Lord of the Rings story was meant as a translation from The Red Book of Westmarch.

    If you then read the Prologue of The Fellowship of the Ring, "Concerning Hobbits" Tolkien states, "Further information (Hobbits) will also be found in the selection from the Red Book of Westmarch that has already been published, under the title of The Hobbit. That story was derived from the earlier chapters of the Red Book, composed by Bilbo himself, the first Hobbit to become famous in the world at large, and called by him There and Back Again, since they told of his journey into the East and his return: an adventure which later involved all the Hobbits in the great events of that Age that are here related."

    Tolkien in this passage is stating that The Hobbit is a published work that takes place before The Lord of the Rings. It's meant to be in the same world as a direct story because it is part of the Red Book of Westmarch.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Westchester, NY
    Posts
    815
    Quote Originally Posted by Witch0King View Post
    I dont see the need to argue about it, Lotr and the Hobbit take place in the same world. Simple as that.
    Exactly! All this ridiculous arguing has become incredibly over the top. I don't think anyone has even argued that Tolkien did not intend for the LoTR when writing the Hobbit. No one is arguing the difference in his style of writing either. But, Tolkien did connect the two stories and firmly indicate the same world after. Whether you agree with the methods he used to connect both stories, is a matter of opinion. It does not change the fact it is the same world.
    Landroval, formerly of Riddermark
    Daerrandir (Champion) Daerendir (Hunter)

  7. #57
    I'm happy with the way both books came out. If I could only take one to a deserted isle it would have to be LOTR but I still enjoy reading the Hobbit. Much like the PJ films there are things in one book that do not make sense in the other so I do not try to make them fit. I prefer to think of The Hobbit as the 'fire side tale' version of the story as Bilbo would have related it to a young Frodo. Replace all the scary bits with grumpy trolls, singing goblins and other entertaining bits of embellishment.
    "You can't fight the Enemy with his own Ring without turning into an Enemy" - J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter # 81



  8. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin2099 View Post
    If you then read the Prologue of The Fellowship of the Ring, "Concerning Hobbits" Tolkien states, "Further information (Hobbits) will also be found in the selection from the Red Book of Westmarch that has already been published, under the title of The Hobbit. That story was derived from the earlier chapters of the Red Book, composed by Bilbo himself, the first Hobbit to become famous in the world at large, and called by him There and Back Again, since they told of his journey into the East and his return: an adventure which later involved all the Hobbits in the great events of that Age that are here related."

    Tolkien in this passage is stating that The Hobbit is a published work that takes place before The Lord of the Rings. It's meant to be in the same world as a direct story because it is part of the Red Book of Westmarch.
    Okay, I'm having one more go at this and then I'm done. This quote illustrates a retcon. It is something done retroactively to establish a continuity that is not apparent or even existent between a current work and a past one. It was done by Tolkien many years after the writing of The Hobbit to bring these writings into a (admittedly flawed) whole. This act precludes the necessity of doing so. At the time of it's writing (1930s), The Hobbit had nothing to do with Tolkien's serious mythology. His mythology was his passion and his thinking about it was concurrent with writing this story for his children and so elements of it began to creep into the narrative. There was no "grand whole" at that time, only his serious mythology and a children's story into which his primary focus dribbled a few details. It was not until 1951, that The Hobbit was even revised to begin the process of this retcon and then only one chapter "Riddles in the Dark".

    Let's just go read CT's preface of The Hobbit. I believe this was written for the 50th anniversary in 1987 and has been excerpted in all editions since then. No need for the arcana of HoME here. Frankly, if you can't reference this, you really have very little business even posting in this forum. A quote, from a letter from 1964:

    By the time The Hobbit appeared this 'matter of the Elder Days' was in coherent form. The Hobbit was not intended to have anything to do with it. I had the habit while my children were still young of inventing and telling orally, sometimes of writing down, 'children's stories' for their private amusement... The Hobbit was intended to be one of them. It had no necessary connexion with the 'mythology', but naturally became attracted towards the dominant construction in my mind, causing the tale to become larger and more heroic as it proceeded.
    Further on in the preface are some communication with his publisher in 1937, rather too long to quote here, that go into Tolkien's concerns with writing a sequel and Hobbits in general. I will leave the entire passage to your own referral except for one bit here:

    Mr. Baggins began as a comic tale among conventional and inconsistent Grimm's fairy-tale dwarves and got drawn into the edge of it - so that even Sauron the terrible peeped over the edge. And what more can hobbit's do? They can be comic, but their comedy is suburban unless it is set against things more elemental.
    Further evidence has already been quoted by Rad repeatedly, but let me add one telling point. Tolkien, the philologist, whose pride was the invention of entire languages within his mythology, did not even invent the name 'Gandalf'. He lifted it, along with the dwarfs' names from Norse sources. One must have little respect indeed for Tolkien if one thinks that he would plagiarize elements like this if he had intended it to be a part of his serious writings.

    Now let's just take a step back on this issue. Can it be said that The Hobbit takes place in the same fictional world of his larger mythology? Yes, but marginally and only then years after the writing of it. Are there elements in The Hobbit which were never intended to be part of the larger mythology. Yes, and enough of a problem that Tolkien himself took pains to try and minimalize them.

    Lastly, Kevin, I happen to have on my shelf an unabridged 2nd edition of the OED, the one with Tolkien's name in the credits by the by, and I see two full columns on this word, but strangely, not your definition. If one desire's is to affect an air of scholarly superiority, one must first endeavor to be correct. Here is the most relevant entry:

    7. The ensuing narrative, discourse etc.; the following or remaining part of a narrative, etc.; that which follows as a continuation; esp. a literary work that, though complete in itself, forms a continuation of a preceding one.

    In that the LOTR is the final chapter in Tolkien's mythology, written to be consistent with the writings which were to become The Silmarillion AND that The Hobbit was simply a small chapter in that story and not written to be consistent with it, the LOTR is more correctly said to be a sequel to that work, the most important and serious of Tolkien's life, and not to The Hobbit.

  9. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by PoeticNightmare View Post
    Exactly! All this ridiculous arguing has become incredibly over the top. I don't think anyone has even argued that Tolkien did not intend for the LoTR when writing the Hobbit. No one is arguing the difference in his style of writing either. But, Tolkien did connect the two stories and firmly indicate the same world after. Whether you agree with the methods he used to connect both stories, is a matter of opinion. It does not change the fact it is the same world.
    Are you guys for real? This is subtle and complex issue concerning Tolkien's works in a forum where we discuss Tolkien. It is not a Peter Jackson apologist forum. It is not a Turbine celebratory forum. It's about Tolkien and that's what is being discussed.

    Your statement is a gross oversimplification. If you can't participate in a discussion which is hard pressed to achieve even the level of a college freshman literary course, then be gracious enough to stay silent instead of proclaiming your ignorance of the issue like Moses handing down commandments.

    This kind of acceptance of any pablum set forth by anyone lucky enough to have rights to interpret Tolkien in a mass medium WITHOUT any criticism whatsoever guarantees that pablum we shall receive in the future. Thanks, guys.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,129
    Quote Originally Posted by JGP View Post
    Are you guys for real? This is subtle and complex issue concerning Tolkien's works in a forum where we discuss Tolkien. It is not a Peter Jackson apologist forum. It is not a Turbine celebratory forum. It's about Tolkien and that's what is being discussed.

    Your statement is a gross oversimplification. If you can't participate in a discussion which is hard pressed to achieve even the level of a college freshman literary course, then be gracious enough to stay silent instead of proclaiming your ignorance of the issue like Moses handing down commandments.

    This kind of acceptance of any pablum set forth by anyone lucky enough to have rights to interpret Tolkien in a mass medium WITHOUT any criticism whatsoever guarantees that pablum we shall receive in the future. Thanks, guys.
    Look you couldn't be more wrong, were are not simplying the discussion we are using logic scrutiny, everything can be logically analysed and with facts its easier as you get a "truth statement".

    You can't speculate what Tolkien wanted, thats simply ridiculous.

    You can speculate or interpret things along as you are still within the framework of tolkien works, if you don't accept Tolkien's word for it then you better desist trying.

    LOTR is Hobbit sequel (FACT)

    LOTR is in another universe than the hobbit (FALSE)

    You and rahruin aren't using straight forward thinking and logical skills when writing which scares me, seem people are sometimes ilogical and iracional and just want things to "fit" their criteria, good thing the real world is logical and racional.

  11. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by Witch0King View Post
    aww did we hit a nerve? poor guy. Here is a handkerchief, there now shut up. You're the ignorant one, you like to make drama and debate out of nothing. you like to yell out how "smart" you are, It's pathetic. Go bother someone else with your arrogant statements. Oh you can keep the handkerchief, you will most certainly need it when you fall of that high horse.
    Ah yes, the rallying cry of the proudly stupid. Is intelligent discussion really too much for you? Really? What are you even doing in this forum? Please head back to a Monster Play forum where I do not doubt you command the respect of a wide range of twelve year olds.

  12. #62
    Oh and a guy who is so "educated" like you should really notice what the thread name is.. The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug (trailer)
    I don't know what you see, but I certainly don't see Tolkien in that thread title.
    Okay, at least that is an attempt at an argument. However, you seem to have neglected to read this thread, in which my first post is specificly concerning the issue. Critical of Peter Jackson, of course, so I doubt you would approve. In a subsequent post I again tried to get this thread back on track.

    The real issue for me is Peter Jackson's interpretation of Tolkien (and his dismal failings). Everyone gets sidetracked now and again, but the crucial differences between the two works, ignored by Jackson and several other posters has been my main thrust.

    I understand that some people like the filmed Hobbit etc. but I did not and use some reasoned arguments as to why I did not. Anyone can reply or attempt to refute my arguments and I in turn will reply to them. Short assertions declaring "truisms" as to the continuity of the two works are not arguments and do not address the evidence in favor of my premises, like direct quotes from Tolkien, expressing an intent in the writing of The Hobbit apart from his mythologies etc. You may still do so.

    I'll apologize for my tone, but not for my reasoning, nor my analysis.


    Quote Originally Posted by PoeticNightmare View Post
    "You're wrong and I'm right."
    "You're stupid."
    "No you're stupid."

    This is what your "intelligent" discussions amount to, regardless of whatever fluff you put in between. I enjoyed some of these posts and agreed with much on both sides. My point was that you guys started to argue points that weren't even being debated and do so in a nasty manner. Having to stress your own intelligence and others' stupidity in every post doesn't make it true.
    No. We are still debating this: There are fundamental differences in the worlds of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. You simply cannot declare the matter over with a blanket statement declaring them to be the same, or with the word FACT in caps. Evidence has been given to the contrary. As I stated above, you may attempt to refute them by refuting my evidence or by giving some of your own, but an unsupported assertion does neither of these.

    Look, I have been making jokes throughout this whole thread trying to lighten it up and I take quite an issue with you characterizing me as nasty. My issue with you is simple. You simply decided the game was over when you decided it was so. My indignance at seeing it with no direct reply to a posting of mine in which I took pains to state my position as categorically simply as I could, with evidence that anyone could verify from The Hobbit, did upset me and I will apologize for a small fit of pique in my next reply.

    Again, my arguments stand and I do wish to discuss it further with anyone who is willing to do so. If you are not willing, then simply do not take part any more.

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Westchester, NY
    Posts
    815
    Quote Originally Posted by JGP View Post




    No. We are still debating this: There are fundamental differences in the worlds of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. You simply cannot declare the matter over with a blanket statement declaring them to be the same, or with the word FACT in caps. Evidence has been given to the contrary. As I stated above, you may attempt to refute them by refuting my evidence or by giving some of your own, but an unsupported assertion does neither of these.

    Look, I have been making jokes throughout this whole thread trying to lighten it up and I take quite an issue with you characterizing me as nasty. My issue with you is simple. You simply decided the game was over when you decided it was so. My indignance at seeing it with no direct reply to a posting of mine in which I took pains to state my position as categorically simply as I could, with evidence that anyone could verify from The Hobbit, did upset me and I will apologize for a small fit of pique in my next reply.

    Again, my arguments stand and I do wish to discuss it further with anyone who is willing to do so. If you are not willing, then simply do not take part any more.
    First and foremost, none of my original posts were directed at you. I was talking to the individuals who claimed that these two books took place in two different worlds. I would think that you'd even agree that this is not entirely true. This is only one simple detail of the larger discussion. I was not talking about the tone of his writing, his writing style, his characters, or his original intentions. I'm talking only about the world itself; Middle Earth. It's my understanding that if Tolkien's most current intention was that both books take place in the same world, it no longer becomes a question. Author's prerogative. Now, to discuss how well or how poorly he made this connection and whether or not it made sense, from a thematic and storytelling prespective is entirely different. However, I made no mention of these points nor did I disagree with any presented.

    I truly hope I am expressing myself correctly here. Again, I was not directing my post to your discussions until after I was quoted by you. I was only touching upon a very simple and black white idea of how LoTR is supposed to take place many years after The Hobbit. I took the "two worlds" posts to mean that LoTR was on Mars while the Hobbit was on Earth, to put it simply. But, Bilbo, Gandalf, the Shire, and Middle Earth are supposed to be the same in both books. I also agreed with the differences in the tones of each story and that Tolkien only made these connections after the fact, essentially as you said a retcon. I thought this is why the references were made later. My understanding was that Tolkien wanted the Hobbit to be a light hearted tale of Bilbo's adventure before the happenings of LoTR.

    And for my part; apologies for my own miscommunication.
    Landroval, formerly of Riddermark
    Daerrandir (Champion) Daerendir (Hunter)

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Westchester, NY
    Posts
    815
    Oh and as far as PJ's movies. I honestly will take what I can get when it comes to my favorite stories ever written. However, I can't say I particularly agree with his choices and how he seems to trivialize and omit such wonderful characters and events from the books. We don't need the stories simplified and changed to appeal to the masses.
    Landroval, formerly of Riddermark
    Daerrandir (Champion) Daerendir (Hunter)

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,129
    Quote Originally Posted by PoeticNightmare View Post
    First and foremost, none of my original posts were directed at you. I was talking to the individuals who claimed that these two books took place in two different worlds. I would think that you'd even agree that this is not entirely true. This is only one simple detail of the larger discussion. I was not talking about the tone of his writing, his writing style, his characters, or his original intentions. I'm talking only about the world itself; Middle Earth. It's my understanding that if Tolkien's most current intention was that both books take place in the same world, it no longer becomes a question. Author's prerogative. Now, to discuss how well or how poorly he made this connection and whether or not it made sense, from a thematic and storytelling prespective is entirely different. However, I made no mention of these points nor did I disagree with any presented.

    I truly hope I am expressing myself correctly here. Again, I was not directing my post to your discussions until after I was quoted by you. I was only touching upon a very simple and black white idea of how LoTR is supposed to take place many years after The Hobbit. I took the "two worlds" posts to mean that LoTR was on Mars while the Hobbit was on Earth, to put it simply. But, Bilbo, Gandalf, the Shire, and Middle Earth are supposed to be the same in both books. I also agreed with the differences in the tones of each story and that Tolkien only made these connections after the fact, essentially as you said a retcon. I thought this is why the references were made later. My understanding was that Tolkien wanted the Hobbit to be a light hearted tale of Bilbo's adventure before the happenings of LoTR.

    And for my part; apologies for my own miscommunication.
    Well said. couldn't say it better myself
    Last edited by Al.; Jun 19 2013 at 03:27 PM.

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    In-game
    Posts
    3,735
    Quote Originally Posted by PoeticNightmare View Post
    Oh and as far as PJ's movies. I honestly will take what I can get when it comes to my favorite stories ever written. However, I can't say I particularly agree with his choices and how he seems to trivialize and omit such wonderful characters and events from the books. We don't need the stories simplified and changed to appeal to the masses.
    Yet that is what it takes to create movies that can be seen as successful, after all they are movies. I would never have become a fan of Tolkien's works if not for the movies. I can pretty much say the same for 95% of the people I know. And I must say that if you've read the book and know it perfectly there is no need for a movie. If you ask me any movie based on a book should be expanded. Not cut into smaller unimportant pieces like what happend with Harry Potter and Percy Jackson. Instead of cutting, Peter Jackson actually expanded it. And I like that very much, I can picture the book in my head, however I can't picture Peter Jackson's version of it in my head. That is what the movies are, Peter Jacksons version.

    According to this website http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/ you can see that The Lord of the Rings are one of the highest grossing movies of all time. So he certainly did something right. Besides, I don't get why people watch PJs movies if they don't like him. He has made it pretty clear by now how he is going to take it.

    I have supported Peter Jackson through the whole way and he hasn't let me down yet. He's still my favorite director of all time.
    "I should call that a heavy loss, if it was not a wonder rather that in his great age he could still wield his axe as mightily as they say he did, standing over the body of King Brand before the gate of Erebor, until the darkness fell."
    http://gladdenhistory.wikispaces.com/

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,129
    Quote Originally Posted by PoeticNightmare View Post
    Oh and as far as PJ's movies. I honestly will take what I can get when it comes to my favorite stories ever written. However, I can't say I particularly agree with his choices and how he seems to trivialize and omit such wonderful characters and events from the books. We don't need the stories simplified and changed to appeal to the masses.
    Yep, Ive seen hollywood &&&& my childhood and well its not nice.

    The books are better than movies.

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,901
    Quote Originally Posted by Al. View Post
    You and rahruin aren't using straight forward thinking and logical skills when writing which scares me, seem people are sometimes ilogical and iracional and just want things to "fit" their criteria, good thing the real world is logical and racional.
    Why no, we're not using your brand of 'straight forward' thinking. And that's a good thing.

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,129
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    Why no, we're not using your brand of 'straight forward' thinking. And that's a good thing.
    Atleast I recognize my errors, like LOTR been a retcon, I do.

    Do you reconize LOTR and the hobbit are in same universe?....Guess not, you sad case.

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Westchester, NY
    Posts
    815
    Quote Originally Posted by Witch0King View Post
    Yet that is what it takes to create movies that can be seen as successful, after all they are movies. I would never have become a fan of Tolkien's works if not for the movies. I can pretty much say the same for 95% of the people I know. And I must say that if you've read the book and know it perfectly there is no need for a movie. If you ask me any movie based on a book should be expanded. Not cut into smaller unimportant pieces like what happend with Harry Potter and Percy Jackson. Instead of cutting, Peter Jackson actually expanded it. And I like that very much, I can picture the book in my head, however I can't picture Peter Jackson's version of it in my head. That is what the movies are, Peter Jacksons version.

    According to this website http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/ you can see that The Lord of the Rings are one of the highest grossing movies of all time. So he certainly did something right. Besides, I don't get why people watch PJs movies if they don't like him. He has made it pretty clear by now how he is going to take it.

    I have supported Peter Jackson through the whole way and he hasn't let me down yet. He's still my favorite director of all time.
    Different strokes for different folks. But I didn't say I didn't enjoy them. I've seen them hundreds of times and still get chills when the Thedon leads the charge into the Pellenor fields with the beautiful violin and horns in the background. There are many scenes that have this effect on me. But, I can enjoy the movie while still being able to disagree with certain decisions on a story I'm very much passionate about. Emo Aragorn, love stories, Arwen's warrior princess instead of Frodo's resolve an bravery standing up to the Nine at the Ford, the death of Haldir ?especially troubling) lack of the Grey Company. But, I quite enjoyed a humurous Gimli while others did not. Again, to each their own
    Landroval, formerly of Riddermark
    Daerrandir (Champion) Daerendir (Hunter)

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,129
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    Why no, we're not using your brand of 'straight forward' thinking. And that's a good thing.
    My logical skills are superior to yours in every case I've discussed with you atleast, Im sorry you might aswell see Superman: Man of Steel and like it....weird-logic thats is all you got.

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,129
    Quote Originally Posted by PoeticNightmare View Post
    Different strokes for different folks. But I didn't say I didn't enjoy them. I've seen them hundreds of times and still get chills when the Thedon leads the charge into the Pellenor fields with the beautiful violin and horns in the background. There are many scenes that have this effect on me. But, I can enjoy the movie while still being able to disagree with certain decisions on a story I'm very much passionate about. Emo Aragorn, love stories, Arwen's warrior princess instead of Frodo's resolve an bravery standing up to the Nine at the Ford, the death of Haldir ?especially troubling) lack of the Grey Company. But, I quite enjoyed a humurous Gimli while others did not. Again, to each their own
    Same here

    Don't watch Superman:Man of Steel, its absolutely bad, its like if they combined all "troubling" scenes into a bad movie. I hate it.

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Westchester, NY
    Posts
    815
    Quote Originally Posted by JGP View Post
    Yep, maybe we have come to the end of worthwhile discussion on this topic.

    For future reference, can everyone who's gonna defend the elf/dwarf romance in the next installment of "Peter Jackson's The Hobbit" raise their hand? Just wonderin'.
    Only if it's a male elf and female dwarf. I'm on board.

    And what do you mean I'll be extinct? What did I do?!
    Landroval, formerly of Riddermark
    Daerrandir (Champion) Daerendir (Hunter)

 

 
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload