Geek Media: failing to not like thorin oakenshield

So, how awesome was Thorin Oakenshield in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey? Seriously, I never in a million years would have thought I'd be able to call a dwarf sexy.

And yet, he managed that in spades (frankly though, so did Kili, which I have already discussed) So much kudos to Richard Armitage for the solid acting and really creating a solid character.

Because honestly, I tried my damndest to hate that character.

(WARNING: Major spoilers from this point onward for the Hobbit. If you have not read the books, proceed at your own risk!)

Now don't get me wrong, he is everything and more that Armitage depicted Thorin in the movie - strong, steadfast, loyal, a great and immense warrior and a legend in his own right, intelligent and thoughtful.

But by the time he arrived in the Hobbit, he really was more the other guy that you saw of Thorin as well from time-to-time in the movies - bitter, world-weary, proud and even a little hateful. But really, way more of the bitterness.

Perhaps it was the style of writing that the Hobbit has, or perhaps it is simply because Tolkien wrote it from Bilbo's perspective, but Thorin was not a likable character in the book. He felt distant, rude and ... well, like a dwarf with little respect for anything at all. None of the more admirable qualities of him was all that self-evident. Certainly it was there based on the loyalty his fellow dwarf companions had for him, but it wasn't outright stated and so somewhat got lost in his stubborn, obstinate behaviour.

What ultimately ruins the whole character for me was that by about page 250, he gets downright insufferable. That base and totally illogical greed of his (illogical because he never ever bore a Ring of Power - according to lore, the Seven increased a dwarf's greed and reliance on defining one's worth by their wealth) takes over upon seeing the vast treasuries of gold in the Lonely Mountain.

For no other reason than that is why he nearly caused a war against Men and Elves! Illogical, stupid, self-absorbed, baseless greed!

In that moment, he goes from being just a mean dude to an evil one ala Boromir from the Lord of the Rings.

Granted, he redeemed himself much like Boromir does at the very end by dying in the Battle of Five Armies defending the Lonely Mountain itself as well as all those that fought in it, but his death simply wasn't as tragic feeling in the book as Boromir's was.

He never did redeem himself into a likable character in the book in my eyes. In some ways, the grudge over his greed and stupidity never faded in my eyes.

Granted, it has been some times since I read the Hobbit and I haven't exactly given it a deeper look in order to thoroughly break down Thorin's psyche from within the narrative or anything... but the countless times I have read that novel, I never walked away from it having liked the dwarf.

And yet, here I was, after movie one-of-three, really, really respecting Thorin and his loyalty. Even his grump and stubborn streak appealed to me in that it simply demonstrated another part of his strength.

All of a sudden, his fallible nature that so repelled me in the books made him someone that I wanted to embrace and to accept. I loved the character and the personal struggles and demons he dealt with. And it actually made me sad, knowing that his end is only two more movies away and that I would actually be very upset at seeing it.

I tried really hard to dislike him, in order to make his passing less tragic. And it won't be so...

Either Richard Armitage is a genius, or I've been duped by Peter Jackson.

Geek Media: kili has - sadly - made me succumb to my inner fangirl

There are any number of things I can and will eventually talk about when it comes to The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (Or as I call it, Hobbit Pt. 1).

But the first that I write with some immediacy, mostly because I give fandom about a 48 hour turnover rate before FFN and many many MANY other fanfiction websites becomes overloaded, overrun even, with Kili/Mary Sue tale.

Yes... Kili/OC. That will be explained... eventually.

And before I go much further... let it be known that any and ALL Hobbit-related tales, critiques, analysis and stories... WILL include all manner of spoilers from both the Book-verse and the Movie-verse.

And I can't even say you're safe from LOTR spoilers here... because you won't be. Frankly speaking.

Okay... so Gimli from The Lord of the Rings was (and in some ways still is) how I mostly envisioned dwarves to look like as a general principle. That is to say, they're stocky, thick, round-faced and all forms of battered and beat up.

So when they announced that they were doing The Hobbit, I had essentially envisioned the 13 dwarves in the movie... to look like this in some form or fashion.

(Please note this was me randomly colouring the dwarves hair for the most part outside of Gloin, Balin and Thorin as it relates to the movies. Otherwise, no form of canon was consulted in the making of this)

 Boy... was I ever wrong about that...

Now, Thorin Oakenshield will have his discussion both in terms of appearance and personality in a comparable "how does he differ book to movie" for me... but let's get back to the crux of the situation here.

So this past summer, they released all of the above character portraits of the 13 dwarves of Erebor. And one in particular caught my eye.

Oh, what? Who's this? was my precise reaction. I mean, no way this guy is a dwarf, much less one of the 13. 

Firstly, he carries bows and arrows. BOWS AND ARROWS. Like some pretty little elf this side of the Misty Mountains for heaven's sakes.

What self respecting dwarf doesn't go for face to face combat? 

Not this one apparently.

Also... none of the chubby cheeks and sturdy build for this dude, nor ugly, stringy hair. No he's slim, he's sexy and he has that angry, don't-give-a-damn look of his down pat. Oh and the hair... very pet-able. XD

Basically, he looks less like a dwarf and more like some other dude I know all too well from the LOTR-verse that follows the events of the Hobbit, and that I have spent many a day obsessing over as a teenager and even now.

Yeaaaaaah... I definitely get more the ranger-y feel from this dwarf.

But I digress. The question here is "who is he?"

To speak in the grandiose nature of Gandalf the Grey, why he is Kili, brother to Fili and nephew of Thorin Oakenshield, bourne of Thorin's own sister. He and his brother are the youngest to take part in the expedition to take back Erebor and is perhaps part of the reason why they both look... well, less like dwarves, more like young men perhaps.

Or in Kili's case, stands as a reasonable excuse as to why his "dwarf beard" amounts to little more than the length of ass-hairs. Seriously, dwarves have beards. What Kili had was too many days without his razor.

Also, the fact that movie!Thorin himself is rather human-like - and good looking to boot - in appearance (although if as much was ever said to the book-canon Thorin he would have strangled you with his bare hands) and the whole family relation thing probably justifies it.


Actually, now that I think of it, Thorin himself has a beard that amounts to little more than nothing in dwarf terms. That stubble ain't a true dwarf beard...

Jesus the things P.J. does to canon - presumed canon anyway - to keep these dwarf men attractive...

Here's the thing though: Kili (and Fili) are about as insignificant a dwarf character as they came in The Hobbit. They rarely spoke, and they didn't really do much of note for the company besides just... was there.

No that's a lie. Their most notable feat was that THEY DIED during the Battle of the Five Armies.

So it is for that reason that I sat their and said, "Well he's cute, but I'm not going to crush on him, he has no real character background, he's insignificant... no no no no no no..."

All summer it was like that.

Little did I know, Peter Jackson gave him the "Legolas" treatment.

That is to say, raised the profile of the pretty faced, minor character to give someone (other than Figwit - who yes, WAS in the movie) for fangirls to swoon over and pine for. He was front and centre for so many major events... most prominently the Trollshaws and then the reindeer bunnies part (don't ask).

And as much as I hate to admit it... I swooned. Hard.

I tried, I really did. But I couldn't help it, my eyes betrayed me, drawn to the nice looking dwarf that reminds me so much of my beloved Aragorn in appearance (in character nature he was far closer to a Merry or Pippin though)

Part of me just didn't want to fall for him for his looks. The other part is that I wanted a character with meaning too, like in the case of Aragorn over Legolas in the original trilogy.

And yet another part of me just simply didn't want to end up in tears after the end of the Battle of Five Armies. (Although to be frank, I will be in tears at the end of Five Armies. Because unlike in The Lord of the Rings... major, important and much loved characters WILL DIE... and not just Kili)

But while watching the film, a character appeared that I adored: a mischievous, playful but tough little dwarf who grew up as bit of an idealistic adventure-lover in the Blue Mountains. He's rash though, a bit careless and somewhat silly but a loyal dwarf unlike any other who will risk life and limb for those he cares for, like Bilbo. He loves to smile and laugh, but in the midst of battle he can take on a bit of a battle rage not unlike his uncle... though certainly not as intense.

What really separates him from the others is that he of all of them truly expressed the fact that he was eager to live, and has yet to feed from the same bitter trough that had hardened and hurt the heart of his uncle Thorin.

Look at that grin. HOW CAN YOU NOT ADORE THAT???

Crap. I think writing this has led to me being bitten by a plot-bunny. Something to do with Fili. And Kili. And origins.

Geek Media: the new hobbit trailer

Have you seen the newest and latest Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey trailer yet?

If your answer to that is "No"... WATCH IT. NOW.

The shiny, new Hobbit trailer has a whole boatload more action and excitement than its predecessor as fans really get a chance for more than a Gandalf soliloquy to tell us what happened.

It opens with some great lines from Bilbo, played by the fabulous Martin Freeman, the best of course being as he runs past a fellow hobbit in pursuit of his company, "I'm going on an adventure!"

Fans of the books have a chance to see many scenes they're familiar with in the story, such as the start of the Riddle game with Gollum, and the Trolls in the Trollshaw. And if you look carefully, you'll even see the characters perched on top of the trees that the goblins set on fire. (Which by looks may also be the final scene or even in this first of three movies)

It also throws in a few unexpected loops in as well - scenes involving events that never happened or were never even hinted at in the book itself. Such as the scene with the flying rocks and disintegrating cliffs... no it is not in the book! Whatmore, I cannot even fathom where this scene would take place, before or after they go inside the Misty Mountains and battle the Goblin King.

You can already tell the dialogue is epic, and the scenes are going to look amazing in 3D.

The whole thing makes me excited for December 14th to come already!

Geek Media: it's a hobbit trilogy revelation

It's official. The Hobbit duology has become a trilogy.

And while 12,000 people on the internets seemed to "Like" this announcement (at least, on Facebook they did, which was where Peter Jackson made the announcement of his decision) I'm not one of them.

Now don't get me wrong, I LOVED the Lord of the Ring trilogy. As far as I'm concerned, Peter Jackson handled that classic brilliantly. So much so did I love it that I have all three extended editions and they get pretty frequent use when I'm of a mind to write or be creative.

Don't ask me why, but it really does get my artistic juices flowing.

But I'm a Tolkienite, and a purist to boot. Even when I write LOTR fanfiction, I keep things canon.

And I accept and totally agree with the idea that the Lord of the Rings movie could not have been done unless each of the three books was an individual movie. It was over 1000 pages long. So relatively speaking, 333 pages per movie.

And even with 3 movies, it was unable to incorporate many events that occurred in the books, such as the meeting of Tom Bombadil and the scuffle at the Barrow Downs, not to mention the Scouring of the Shire.

But the 310 page (more or less, depending on the edition and the font size) Hobbit? Compared to the LOTR movies, in page terms it can't be longer than one standard 3-hour movie. So even the duology was a bit of stretch for me.

But I was able to accept it. Mostly because I figured the second movie would be 50% Battle of the Five Armies, which anyone who have read said book knows, that battle was all of around 10 pages worth, and that was because it was told from Bilbo's point of view, who was knocked out at the beginning of it. And having seen what Jackson did with the Battle at Helm's Deep (turned a one chapter narrative to a 1.5 hour odessey in the Two Towers) and knowing his love for those huge, epic battles (and the Battle of Five Armies is one of the bigger and badder battles in the Third Age of Middle-earth) he wasn't going to settle for 10 minutes of that fight.

But now it's a trilogy, and it has me throwing a bit of a fit.

Yes Peter Jackson states without doubt that they plan to use that extra time to incorporate more material spoken about in the Appendices of the Lord of the Rings that does touch upon a number of things that occurred during the these events.

But it's not enough to fill a trilogy. A duology yes, but not a trilogy.

Which has me wondering if this may be Jackson's (and the studio's) attempt at a cash grab. I mean, they already have a dedicated audience in Tolkien fans from around the world, but even those who could care less about Tolkien or Middle-earth would probably go out to watch this movie. And because once people watch and enjoy one, they tend to want to finish what they started irregardless of how crappy the rest of the movies are. One only has to look the the Toby Maguire-led Spiderman trilogy in addition to the Matrix to know this to be true.

Why not increase your profit by another half by extending the series into a third movie? Even if by the end of it people are frothing at the mouth?

Which brings up another issue for me. Precisely how much artistic licensing Jackson will be taking with these movies as a result?

And then I get worried.

I will probably still go out to watch the first movie this Christmas. But I may choose to watch Les Miserables first as a result all the same.

No that's a lie. I still like my Tolkien. Even if it becomes bastardized. But then, who knows, maybe Jackson is a genius and he'll find a way for this to work?

Geek Media: don't do it peter jackson!

So reports are rising from this past weekend's Comi-Con in San Diego that Peter Jackson is hoping to get the OK from the studios so that he can return to New Zealand to shoot more footage for his upcoming The Hobbit movie duology.

That's cool, you may think. After all, did he not return to shoot some finishing details and touches to each of his Lord of the Rings movies before they actually went to theatres?

Well yes, but his reasoning for going back is nowhere near as innocent or "small minded".

He wants to continue filming in the hopes that ... the studio will let him...

Expand the second movie of the two The Hobbit movies... into a third!

Suddenly, The Hobbit duology went may turn into a trilogy.

To that I say WHAT?

At around 300 pages long, that averages 100 pages of the book for the movie. And if any of you have read 100 pages of those books, it doesn't (or rather shouldn't) take very long to go through 100 pages. You can tend to get through them fast, very fast.

Now granted, the Battle of Five Armies lasted maybe... 5 of those pages, if even, and that's mostly because (spoilers) Bilbo got knocked out at the beginning of it while wearing his then-benign-but-later-very-evil ring (note with a lowercase here) by an errant Goblin swing (end spoilers).

That's not going to happen in this movie. Not with Peter "bloody-long-my-bloody-battles" Jackson at the helm. When he can extend the Battle of Helms Deep to a good 1/3 of the Two Towers movie out of a single chapter of said book, you can bet that the Five Armies is going to be a prolonged epic bloodbath where it will actually feel like five armies are involved and not just a bloody hobbit versus the world incident.

Seriously, expect blood.

Also, as it stands, apparently they're also going to be filming stuff from the Lord of the Rings appendices that didn't or couldn't be worked into the first triology helmed by Jackson. So there is that too.

Which is all well and good, and yet, all I can think is...

Don't do it Peter Jackson!

Geek Media : the hobbit production video #7

As a complete fantasy nerd, to say that I didn't watch the newest production video for THE HOBBIT movie a million times since it was released on June 6th would be considered a giant travesty. After all, this is the FIRST production video since March 2nd, a long 3 months ago!


Well... I didn't. <.<


Reason? Work and school. 


...


And the Stanley Cup Final. And the Calder Cup Final.


And I'm not even a fan of the LA Kings OR the New Jersey Devils. 


I know, I am currently failing miserably at maintaining my geek cred. I should half-consider turning in my badge and accept the fact that as much of a geek I may be in some areas, I certainly fall short in the "should not be interested in sports" part of the necessary criteria.


My excuse; I can't help it. I'm a true-blue Canadian. I bleed hockey.


Anyway, here's the latest production video. Remember, THE HOBBIT books are required reading.

THE HOBBIT: Part 1 Trailer: