Our Sponsor Sideshow Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
what if tauriel and kili did get together...
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Bishop
Gondor


Jul 29 2015, 1:13pm

Post #26 of 46 (1713 views)
Shortcut
Yes [In reply to] Can't Post

And unless we're being oddly prudish, I think it's fair to say all of those people you listed "got together".


Bishop
Gondor


Jul 29 2015, 1:16pm

Post #27 of 46 (1714 views)
Shortcut
Hey, this is on Jackson [In reply to] Can't Post

He's the one who introduced a full blown love story between a Dwarf and an Elf.

So, if I understand your position correctly you are saying that there was nothing physical between Kili and Tauriel, nor would there ever be if the circumstances had allowed for it (if Kili had survived for example)? Is that correct?


dormouse
Half-elven


Jul 29 2015, 1:51pm

Post #28 of 46 (1695 views)
Shortcut
Well.... [In reply to] Can't Post

When I made that comment I was answering a specific comment made by Bishop:

Quote
To be clear here I'm saying that the way they are presented by Jackson, not Tolkien, leaves the door wide open on exactly what kind of love they had for one another.

The 'essential nature of Tolkien's creation' that I was referring to there was the essential nature of elf and dwarf. As Tolkien described the two different races I don't believe that a casual affair in the manner of a modern soap opera was remotely likely - I don't believe it was even possible. And I don't believe that the film was attempting to suggest that it was. That's what the comment meant

But if you insist on widening that out to take another general swipe at Peter Jackson, and apparently at me too, then you push me to answer. I stick by what I said. Peter Jackson has made changes, some that I like and some not so much, but I don't believe he has changed the essential nature of Tolkien's creation. And I'm afraid I don't accept your terminology at all, so I'm not going to agree with it.

First, 'grossness': Kili's trouser comment was out of place and unnecessary. It didn't fit. I've said all along that when the films fail for me - that's all six films, not just 'The Hobbit' - it's usually because a character is given something to say or do which is too modern. Faramir watching his men torture Gollum - Aragorn beheading the Mouth of Sauron - Kili making suggestive remarks - Alfrid in drag. Any of these things would be routine in a modern drama. In Tolkien I think they're misplaced. But I wouldn't dismiss the entire sequence of films as gross because of them.

Then 'stupidity': Pass - I don't know what you're referring to.

'Comic-book action'. I'm not a great one for action films or for action sequences in films, I just accept them as part of the story. I suppose the goblin town chase was a bit 'comic-book' also the barrel escape, but to judge from the audience reaction I heard people really seem to enjoy those sequences. I found them amusing too, particularly the barrels. Fun isn't a dirty word - film is supposed to be entertaining.

'Some desperate attempt to link the two trilogies'. Well, wasn't it Tolkien who linked the two stories, so why is it wrong for the films to bring out those links? Or desperate? The Hobbit was made because LotR was such a success - and they really are part of one story. I enjoyed seeing the Shire and Rivendell and Bree again: I was glad to see Legolas and Frodo and old Bilbo, and I found the reference to Aragorn intriguing - I find echoes of the sons of Elrond in the backstory they've created for Legolas, and I always missed them from the previous films. I enjoy the musical links too. I think it would have been odd if they'd tried to make The Hobbit without reference to LotR.

I suppose what it comes down to is that I'm not angry about the films as you seem to be. There are moments when they fail for me but I don't dwell on that. I love them for the times they get it right - for the creativity and the beauty, and the joy of seeing the stories acted out - and I salute all the hard work that we know goes into them. They make me happy - is that really so wrong?


dormouse
Half-elven


Jul 29 2015, 1:54pm

Post #29 of 46 (1692 views)
Shortcut
Yes [In reply to] Can't Post

Kili was never going to survive.


Bishop
Gondor


Jul 29 2015, 1:57pm

Post #30 of 46 (1688 views)
Shortcut
Kili's survival has nothing to do with it [In reply to] Can't Post

Is it also your position that Elves and Dwarves are in no way physically compatible?


dormouse
Half-elven


Jul 29 2015, 2:09pm

Post #31 of 46 (1683 views)
Shortcut
Of course it does.... [In reply to] Can't Post

Philippa Boyens said that she and Fran Walsh liked the idea of Gimli and Galadriel and wanted to revisit it. Well, if they had done that using one of the other dwarves - one who was going to survive the Battle - then at some point they would have had to answer all these questions about physical compatibility, whether elf and dwarf could marry and so on. (Remember that one night stands don't happen in the culture of Middle Earth. Tolkien's characters take relationships very seriously.) By using a dwarf who was going to die in the last film they side-stepped all that. It was a doomed love, it was always meant to be.

I'm not sure how many times I have to say this. I think it's unlikely that Tolkien's elves and dwarves would be physically compatible, given that their creation is so different. As Tolkien describes it, they're made from different stuff.


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Jul 29 2015, 2:10pm

Post #32 of 46 (1681 views)
Shortcut
To fic, or not to fic. [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm not disparaging the existence of fanfic in general; just casting doubt on that particular idea. Even then, it might make for an entertaining story if handled with humor.

"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." - Phantom F. Harlock


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Jul 29 2015, 2:19pm

Post #33 of 46 (1677 views)
Shortcut
Well.... [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I'm not sure how many times I have to say this. I think it's unlikely that Tolkien's elves and dwarves would be physically compatible, given that their creation is so different. As Tolkien describes it, they're made from different stuff.



There are two types of physical compatability in play here (or there would be, if Kili and Tauriel had been able to attempt a long-term relationship). Could they produce children? Probably not; although the more magical nature of Elves might provide a workaround past genetics.

Now the cruder question: Could Kili and Tauriel enjoy sexual relations with each other regardless of the ability to reproduce? Almost certainly, yes. People are inventive, especially in bed. And I can't imagine that their basic parts were all THAT different. Love would find a way.

"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." - Phantom F. Harlock

(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Jul 29 2015, 2:19pm)


Glorfindela
Valinor


Jul 29 2015, 2:22pm

Post #34 of 46 (1674 views)
Shortcut
No [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm not taking any swipe at you personally, Dormouse, and I often agree with what you say, or taking 'another swipe at Peter Jackson' for that matter. However, I cannot be virtually uncritical of things that I really dislike in The Hobbit and that really spoil the films for me.

Firstly, I have never 'dismissed the entire sequence of films as gross' because of the gross moments. Grossness for me is people eating testicles (a scene apparently relished by PJ), emerging from toilets, throwing food around (not once but twice), burping, Alfrid and so on. These things are entirely misplaced in a Tolkien adaptation, and they go a long way towards spoiling DoS and the last film especially for me.

Secondly, examples of 'stupidity' (and 'comic-book action moments, not even well done) are the inane 'what's it got down its trousers moment'; Legolas unrealistically hopping in the air on stones and apparently doing ridiculous stunts while holding onto a poor bat, during a key tragic scene; Legolas jumping on Dwarves' heads. (I like the Goblin tunnels scene, personally.)

Thirdly, I have never suggested that they should have made 'The Hobbit without reference to LotR'. Tolkien linked the two stories, and very well. However, there was absolutely no need to attempt to link them further through ridiculous made-up Tauriel and Legolas scenes – especially at the expense of leaving much that should have been explained and developed as gaping plot holes. Tolkien provided more than enough links between the two trilogies, and there was no need to try and link them any further. I'm not talking about not seeing the Shire, Rivendell and Bree again (which I enjoyed and do not criticise, and they are precisely the sort of links that already exist in Tolkien's work). (I must admit I see no 'echoes of the sons of Elrond' in any back story.)

For whatever reason (probably over-confidence), too much liberty was taken with this story – something PJ seemed careful not to do in the case of LotR, though his indulgences did become progressively greater with each film, from a near-perfect FotR, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm glad the films make you happy, and I'm sorry to feel so negative about them (apart from AUJ and some of the things in DoS and especially in the final film). However, I can't help thinking that much of the added material is self-indulgence on the film-makers' part (annoying for me), and that it did much to make the films less successful than they could have been. Being really enthusiastic about the forthcoming films after AUJ, then being severely disappointed, is possibly a big reason for my negativity.


(This post was edited by Glorfindela on Jul 29 2015, 2:27pm)


dreamflower
Lorien

Jul 29 2015, 2:24pm

Post #35 of 46 (1675 views)
Shortcut
That's what I thought [In reply to] Can't Post

But I didn't want to make assumptions. Some people do have an issue with fanfic in general, or with Tolkien fanfic specifically; others don't.
Obviously I'm a "don't". Wink
However, not every plot bunny is a good one that needs to be written, even as a parody.

Some people call it fanfiction. I call it story-internal literary criticism.


dormouse
Half-elven


Jul 29 2015, 2:26pm

Post #36 of 46 (1672 views)
Shortcut
People may be.... [In reply to] Can't Post

...but this is an elf and a dwarf, and as Tolkien describes them neither race seems to share the attitudes and customs of (some) 21st century humans! Wink


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Jul 29 2015, 2:40pm

Post #37 of 46 (1663 views)
Shortcut
Be that as it may... [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
...but this is an elf and a dwarf, and as Tolkien describes them neither race seems to share the attitudes and customs of (some) 21st century humans!




Kili had already expressed an interest in Elven lasses. And Tauriel made that speculative comment to Legolas about Kili's height. So we can argue that there was some indication of mutual curiosity already established. I will grant that the more prurient interest seemed to be on Kili's side. And I don't think that the side-story would have gone anywhere if Thranduil had not viciously stomped on any hope that Tauriel might have had for a deeper relationship with his son.

"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." - Phantom F. Harlock


lionoferebor
Rohan

Jul 30 2015, 12:56am

Post #38 of 46 (1575 views)
Shortcut
Tauriel/Kili vs. Galadriel/Gimli [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Philippa Boyens said that she and Fran Walsh liked the idea of Gimli and Galadriel and wanted to revisit it.



This is what PB says, and that may be the way Kili and Tauriel were intended to feel about each other, but I've always thought their story was closer to Arwen and Aragorn rather than Galadriel and Gimli.

1. For starters - and probably the most obvious - is the Kili giving Tauriel the ruin stone much like Arwen gives Aragorn the Evenstar.

2. Next there is Kili's "she walks in starlight speech" which I equate back to in FOTR when Aragorn tells Arwen that when he first saw her he thought he had walked into a dream.

3. The there is Thranduil who challenges Tauriel's true feelings toward Kili when he says to her "what you feel for that dwarf isn't real." In a similar fashion Elrond tries to discourage Arwen from remaining in ME with Aragorn stating "there is nothing for you here." (Of course both Thranduil and Elrond do come around).

4. In regards to the above, Tauriel and Arwen each respond in a similar way. Despite what Thranduil says about her feelings not being true, Tauriel still goes to Ravenhill looking for Kili. Just as Arwen returns home to wait for Aragorn even though according to her father there is nothing for her there.

5. Last, is the healing scene. I will admit this comparison is more Tauriel/Kili vs Arwen/Frodo, still there are three out the four characters and there are some distinct similarities between the scenes: Morgul wound, Elf healing smaller creature with athelas, speaking Elvish, weird mysteries white glow. And even if one feels it cannot be counted, there are still the four examples given above.

As for Galadriel and Gimli...yes Gimli is enchanted by Galadriel (who wouldn't be) much like Kili is supposedly enchanted by Tauriel. However unlike Tauriel and Kili's story which continues through two films, Galariel and Gimli's story only last for the time the Fellowship is in Lothlorien. Even then the only real glimpse we get of it is when they are parting and she gives him three strands of her hair.

Also, from the movie and book, I never got the impression Galadriel returned Gimli's feelings. I think she was flattered, but I do not believe she had any kind of strong emotional attachment toward Gimli. If for no other reason she had a husband.

Arwen, however is committed to no one else but Aragorn and therefore is able and willing to return his feelings. In the same way Tauriel has no one but Kili and eventually she too returns his feelings...though a bit too late. Unsure (This could be included to the list as numeral 6).

So for me, had Tauriel not returned Kili's feelings and the only interaction between the two was when Kili gave her the ruin stone then I could see the similarities between Tauriel and Kili vs Galadrirl and Gimli. Yet, with all the examples stated above I find Tauriel and Kili's story are more like Arwen and Aragorn's story.


Bishop
Gondor


Jul 30 2015, 2:34am

Post #39 of 46 (1557 views)
Shortcut
I totally agree with this [In reply to] Can't Post

Any parallel between Gimli/Galadriel and Kili/Tauriel ends at the fact that one is a Dwarf and the other is an Elf. The particulars of how their love manifests itself, how it is given and received, the circumstances under which it develops and the length of time dedicated to it seem utterly different to me. In fact I would find it incredibly odd if the filmmakers thought the Gimli/Galadriel and Kili/Tauriel were the same kind of love story.


(This post was edited by Bishop on Jul 30 2015, 2:43am)


dormouse
Half-elven


Jul 30 2015, 8:24am

Post #40 of 46 (1516 views)
Shortcut
Interesting post..... [In reply to] Can't Post

...and I wouldn't argue with most of the details you've highlighted. I do think there's a significant difference on your third point: Thranduil is questioning Tauriel's actual feelings while Elrond knows his daughter is in love with Aragorn and doesn't question it, instead he tries to convince her that her love has no future.

But that's minor. What I think you're not seeing is that the similarities you've identified are part of the writing process. They don't overrule the connection to Gimli/Galadriel which Philippa Boyens identified. This is how I think it works:

1. PB and Fran Walsh liked the Gimli - Galadriel storyline and wanted to revisit it. PB said it and I see no reason to question that - she should know, she wrote the script! In Lord of the Rings Gimli-Galadriel was just that brief moment in Fellowship. By using other characters they could explore the idea further and do more with it.

2. So they start with a Gimli - Galadriel set-up. Kili is enchanted by Tauriel just as Gimli is by Galadriel. At first Tauriel doesn't return his feelings. That's the starting point - PB and FW revisiting the story from Fellowship. But they've said they wanted to take it further, so where do they going with it?

3. First they establish that Tauriel isn't Galadriel. She's younger, less cultured, 'less wise and more dangerous' (or in this case, more passionate). They establish early on that she has feelings for Legolas and the confirmation of her fear that this is a relationship his father won't allow is a blow to her, though she conceals it. That gives her an openness and a vulnerability.

4. Now, imagine you're PB and FW, trying to write this storyline. You're going somewhere Tolkien didn't go but you want to keep some sort of anchor to his story. How will you do that? Easy - you look to the stories he did write about love between the different races of Middle Earth and draw ideas from them. And the closest example - the one they've used before - is Aragorn and Arwen. So yes, I think you're absolutely right that there are similarities. But I think that what you're highlighting here is something that runs through all six film scripts. When Peter Jackson and his co-writers have invented or changed an existing storyline they've often taken their cue from something elsewhere Tolkien - to keep that anchor to the original. The Hobbit films are full of subtle echoes of The Silmarillion - Tauriel herself, for example, has a lot in common with Aredhel.

But there is one critical difference, I think, between Kili-Tauriel and Aragorn-Arwen. In Tolkien each of the rare pairings of elf and human has played a key part in the story. He never created a love match between elf and dwarf or suggested that such a thing might be possible, and I'm betting that PB and FW realised that writing such a thing themselves would be a step too far. So that was the point at which their story diverged from Aragorn and Arwen. They wrote their expanded Gimli-Galadriel story for a dwarf who was going to die, neatly side-stepping all the difficult questions about compatibility and whether it had a future.


lionoferebor
Rohan

Jul 30 2015, 1:50pm

Post #41 of 46 (1479 views)
Shortcut
Actually... [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm not missing the point. If you go back and read my opening statement: This is what PB says, and that may be the way Kili and Tauriel were intended to feel about each other, but I've always thought their story was closer to Arwen and Aragorn rather than Galadriel and Gimli.

In other words: PB and FW may have been inspired by one storyline but it manifested on screen as a different storyline. This often happens in the writing process (which I am very well aware of by the way), writers find inspiration from one source but as they begin to develop the story more times than not it goes in a slightly/extremely different direction.

To be clear, I'm not trying to imply that the origin of a story is insignificant. It is very important as most stories originate from somewhere...i.e. personal experience, history, other stories, etc. However, the way a story unfolds is what the audience is more likely grab on to rather than the origin and/or the writing process.

I have to get ready for work, so I'll up be upfront and make this easy: I do not disagree that Galadriel and Gimli were the inspiration behind Kili and Tauriel, but to say onscreen it reflected Galadriel and Gimli's story I cannot agree. The only way I'll be convinced that it did reflect their story is if someone provides seven onscreen comparison between Kili and Tauriel vs. Galadriel and Gimili, as I have previously given six onscreen comparison between Kili and Tauriel vs. Arwen and Aragorn.

Also, you keep hinting at the fact that one reason PB and FW chose Kili because he dies in the end and this provided them with an out to answer questions in reference to whether or not their relationship would work in the long term, etc. Just out of curiosity, if Tolkien had written the story so that all the Dwarves survived, do you think PB and FW would have still proceeded with Tauriel and Kili's storyline?


Bombadil
Half-elven


Jul 30 2015, 2:21pm

Post #42 of 46 (1468 views)
Shortcut
Bombyzz 14th share of this Conversation..? [In reply to] Can't Post

Kili is naive
Example: when he teases Bilbo about ORCS near by.
THORIN: "You know Nothing of WAR " which is a set-up
for Balin to give all of them the History between Thorin & Azog.

Kili is Flirtatious
Example: @ the Banquet Hall in Rivendell
only to made fun of by Dwalin & Laughed @ by the rest of Company

Kili is Flirtatious again when locked up in Jail, but
Bom's theory is that?
he naively thinks he COULD escape by drawing her in close..
maybe getting her to help HIM?

None of them have ever been jailed before.

Kili is quite impressed with her,
Since She Saves
him 3 times.

The Spider Scene
@ the Water Gate
& in... Bard's house.

So?.. he is only naively reacting to a woman who has proven herself, a
Self-reliant
Superior warrior who can also heal the
Sick.

There are examples of many soldiers falling for their
Nurses in Wartime, everywhere..in
Most Media Maybe.?
to romance her, for a short time
before going off to his death.

So this whole
MOVIE~plot line, can be thought as a
Metaphor for these
Many examples in Story~plots, which is where

Bomby will HANG Hizz Hat?
when it comes to this MOVIE plot line. Nothing
MORE..
Crazy

www.charlie-art.biz
"What Your Mind can conceive... charlie can achieve"

(This post was edited by Bombadil on Jul 30 2015, 2:25pm)


dormouse
Half-elven


Jul 30 2015, 3:07pm

Post #43 of 46 (1457 views)
Shortcut
Whoa, steady on there!.... [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
I do not disagree that Galadriel and Gimli were the inspiration behind Kili and Tauriel, but to say onscreen it reflected Galadriel and Gimli's story I cannot agree. The only way I'll be convinced that it did reflect their story is if someone provides seven onscreen comparison between Kili and Tauriel vs. Galadriel and Gimili, as I have previously given six onscreen comparison between Kili and Tauriel vs. Arwen and Aragorn.


If someone else wants to take up the challenge they're welcome, but I was actually agreeing with you! I'm not sure how much more clearly I can say this. Gimli-Galadriel was the starting point for Kili-Tauriel. In developing that storyline further, Philippa Boyens and Fran Walsh used ideas from other love stories in Tolkien particularly - as you pointed out in your earlier post, Aragorn and Arwen. OK? What you see onscreen isn't Gimli-Galadriel it's a development of it.


Quote
Also, you keep hinting at the fact that one reason PB and FW chose Kili because he dies in the end and this provided them with an out to answer questions in reference to whether or not their relationship would work in the long term, etc.


Hinting? I thought I said it straight out. Developing this storyline around a dwarf who dies gave them the freedom to play with the idea without having to answer those questions or introduce a major change to the fabric of Tolkien's world. In Tolkien relationships are taken very seriously and there is no instance of elf marrying dwarf.


Quote
Just out of curiosity, if Tolkien had written the story so that all the Dwarves survived, do you think PB and FW would have still proceeded with Tauriel and Kili's storyline?


Pass! I'm not a mind reader and that would be a very different Hobbit... But if you want an answer I'll guess that, all other things being equal and PB and FW still wanting to play with an elf and dwarf love, they would have found some other obstacle to the relationship. The implacable opposition of Thorin (since he's still alive in your scenario); Tauriel's death in the Battle, Tauriel has a sudden change of heart and falls for Bolg - goes off with Radagast to tend the hedgehogs - marries Bard. I don't think they would ever have given Tauriel and Kili a happy ending because there is no precedent for that in Tolkien.
That's just me guessing. I could be completely wrong, but if you want any further answer you'll have to ask them




Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


Jul 30 2015, 4:23pm

Post #44 of 46 (1432 views)
Shortcut
Kind of what I said above [In reply to] Can't Post

See my take on the "trousers" line.

Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association


Elarie
Grey Havens

Jul 31 2015, 12:07am

Post #45 of 46 (1401 views)
Shortcut
Oh well, why not? But there could be problems... [In reply to] Can't Post

There once was a red-headed dwelf,
The product of dwarf and an elf,
His arrows flew far,
Till, distracted by stars,
He embedded an ax in himself.
TongueCrazyBlush

__________________

Gold is the strife of kinsmen,
and fire of the flood-tide,
and the path of the serpent.

(Old Icelandic Fe rune poem)


lionoferebor
Rohan

Jul 31 2015, 1:19am

Post #46 of 46 (1391 views)
Shortcut
Hold on... [In reply to] Can't Post

I have no intention to argue with you or anyone else for that matter. My apologies if it came across that way. Angelic

I have known for quite some time now that Galadriel/Gimli was the inspiration behind Tauriel/Kili, so it was clear to me LONG before you brought it up. Also, as mentioned in my previous post, I am very well aware of the writing process in regards to how a story/characters evolves overtime. In that respect, I think it is clear that you and I both agree that while Galadriel/Gimli may have been the starting point the final manifestation of the story - as the result of the writing process - mirrored that of Arwen/Aragorn instead.

SIDE NOTE: I have not read LOTR in quite sometime nor have I finished reading The Silmarillion, so to be fair I am comparing Tauriel/Kili only to the onscreen relationships of Galadriel/Gimli and Aragorn/Arwen.

I think - and I could be wrong, so forgive me if I am Angelic - the disconnect is, it seems to me, your focus is the inspiration of the story while my focus is the actual manifestation of the story.

I am a person who holds true to the saying: actions speak louder than words. While I understand and,to an extent, respect the idea that Galadriel/Gimli was the origins of the story, at the end of the day for me what matters more is what I saw on screen. Hence my seven point challenge, which I honestly do not think anyone will meet it. But I have been wrong in the past, so there is always the chance someone may come along and surprise me. Wink (To be clear, by the way, this challenge was not solely targeted at you. I asked for someone (anyone) to give examples, if the challenge was targeted at you I would've specifically said you. Again my apologies if it came across the wrong way).

Is this to say I think PB said one thing but she and FW had different intentions all along? Well, as you said I'm not a mind reader so I really can not say one way or the other. Wink Nor can anyone else for that matter, unless they are a mentalist. However, I would probably appreciate PB's comment more in regards Galadriel/Gimli being the inspiration, if she also acknowledged that overtime the story manifested into something more like Arwen/Aragorn. She seems like an intelligent, well-experience screenwriter and I would find it hard-pressed to believe that at some point she and/or FW did not see the obvious similarities between the stories. So why not acknowledge it? (That's a rhetorical question). Or have the similarities between Tauriel/Kili and Arwen/Aragorn been acknowledged and I'm simply not aware? If it has, a simple "yes" will do.

In reference to the term "hinted" I felt it was a more softer approach than saying "as you said" or "as you mentioned". Guess not. Unsure I will be sure to avoid the word "hinted" in the future.

As for my question on whether or not you thought PB and FW would have proceed with Tauriel and Kili had he survived in the book, I was not asking you to read minds I simply wanted to know your thoughts. Unsure And the scenarios you offered were quite clever: the use of Thorin as an obstacle, Taureil or Kili having a change of heart, etc.Though my favorite was Bolg and Tauriel running off into the sunset. Laugh

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.