Question about LOTR Return of the King

[chickenpatty]

My big girls & I started watching this recently, but had to turn it off after the first 5 minutes. It was so gross and disturbing! My oldest probably could have handled it, but my 13yr old is pretty sensitive (soon to be 14) was really grossed out by it.

 

Does it continue like that throughout the movie? If you're wondering what we found gross & disturbing - it was the choking someone to death (accompanied by the loud dying pulse) and the nasty mouth biting into a live/raw fish.

 

I really wanted to see it, because so many people rave about it & the other movies in LOTR. My oldest wants to see it, too. I'm just wondering if it gets.... I don't know what the word is.... nicer (???) through the rest of the movie. Or worse? Or about the same?

[Melinda in VT]

Wait, wait, wait. Are you trying to watch Return of the King without having seen the Fellowship of the Ring or the Two Towers? Stop, please. Start at the beginning. You will enjoy it so much more that way.

 

But as for your question, I don't remember the choking scene specifically, but I would say that you should not expect the rest of the movie to get nicer.

[Mrs Mungo]

Is the entire movie like that? No. Are parts of the movie violent? Yes.

 

And Return of the King is the last of a series. You truly are not going to have any idea what is happening without watching the first two.

[Mrs Mungo]

But as for your question, I don't remember the choking scene specifically, but I would say that you should not expect the rest of the movie to get nicer.

 

It is the bit where Smeagol acquires the ring.

[Melinda in VT]

It is the bit where Smeagol acquires the ring.

 

Thanks. I think it's time for a marathon LOTR watching. Maybe that will bleach The Hobbit from my mind. ;-)

[chickenpatty]

Okay, thanks! Dd just grabbed the first one she saw on the shelf at the library. Maybe we'll try again with the first. :)

[mumto2]

 

 

Thanks. I think it's time for a marathon LOTR watching. Maybe that will bleach The Hobbit from my mind. ;-)

 

 

Not trying to steal thread but I haven't looked at the Hobbit threads on purpose. Still need to see the movie. Why the need for bleach.....boring, bloody, what??? Should I go first? My dcs love the book--I don't want to ruin it. They have not seen LOTR yet. I was waiting for the Hobbit.

[happypamama]

Yes, you should see the other two in the LOTR trilogy first, but no, it doesn't continue like that for the entire movie. There *are* some violent and slightly scary parts and some battles, but some of the best scenes in the trilogy are in ROTK. There are so very many scenes in it that make me cry. every. single. time. (And some hilarious scenes too.) There are violent battle scenes in all of the three films, but do start with Fellowship -- its opening scenes are simply beautiful (and honestly will give you a real sense of just WHY they do what they do in the other two films). They're really meant to be viewed as one continual story, so you absolutely do need to see the first part first.

 

ETA: I had read The Hobbit but not the LOTR before I saw the LOTR movies (and honestly, seeing the movies did make me interested in reading the books, whereas I had not been before; I did finish Fellowship so far), but obviously I saw the LOTR movies before I saw The Hobbit movie. I think The Hobbit movie works well as either the first part in the long series, or as a prequel, so I think you could view either the LOTR trilogy OR The Hobbit first. There were some nice nods in The Hobbit movie that you'd only get if you have seen LOTR, but I think you could see The Hobbit first without being confused either.

[Jennifer3141]

It was a violent series of books in many places so yes, the movies are as well. Why would that be surprising?

[Melinda in VT]

Not trying to steal thread but I haven't looked at the Hobbit threads on purpose. Still need to see the movie. Why the need for bleach.....boring, bloody, what??? Should I go first? My dcs love the book--I don't want to ruin it. They have not seen LOTR yet. I was waiting for the Hobbit.

 

The Hobbit movie isn't any bloodier than LOTR, and it's not even that the movie was especially boring. It's just bad. And it doesn't hold true to the book.

 

Jackson seems to be trying to reposition The Hobbit as a prequel to the LOTR, when really The Hobbit book has a very different feel from the trilogy. LOTR deals with epic themes of good and evil. The Hobbit book is a light-hearted adventure story for children. Jackson pretty much ignores the spirit of the book. (Which is ironic, given how much was made of their focus on the LOTR books on the set of the LOTR movies.)

 

In my opinion, Jackson also lost control of the special effects in ROTK, and this lack of control continues in The Hobbit. The special effects detract from the story.

[mumto2]

 

 

The Hobbit movie isn't any bloodier than LOTR, and it's not even that the movie was especially boring. It's just bad.

 

Thank you! We may just wait for the dvd. I admit to not being a huge fan of LOTR movies due to poor content coverage. I made my neighbor actually read the books when he kept going on about the great movies. He made me watch. I think the small screen might be fine.

[UrbanSue]

You know what? I am really glad I have never watched LOTR.

 

I'm sort of a naive person. I have to say that my personal imagination of the orcs has become more evil as I have grown older. I doubt that I could handle the presentation of the orcs provided by the Hollywood elite.

 

Books let you handle things as you can; movies don't. They force images that you may or may not be able to handle.

 

Let your kids have their space to handle what they can.

 

I really agree with this. I have seen the first three movies. And I enjoyed them. But it will be a long time before we let our kids watch them. Dh and I were just talking yesterday about the movies. It occurred to us that we think the movies got the evil right but gave short shrift to a lot of the good. The Ringwraiths are about the scariest thing I've ever seen on a screen. The or s are truly horrible. But Aragorn didn't really ever seem to arrive at the noble king he was destined to be. Just as a couple examples.

 

Overall, I did like them. But know that there is much in the books that is scary and that is going to be MUCH worse on a screen. If you aren't into that kind of thing, skip them for now.

 

Did you like the Narnia movies? LOTR is very sismilar, except several orders of magnitude MORE in most ways.

[Mrs Mungo]

 

 

The Hobbit movie isn't any bloodier than LOTR, and it's not even that the movie was especially boring. It's just bad. And it doesn't hold true to the book.

 

Jackson seems to be trying to reposition The Hobbit as a prequel to the LOTR, when really The Hobbit book has a very different feel from the trilogy. LOTR deals with epic themes of good and evil. The Hobbit book is a light-hearted adventure story for children. Jackson pretty much ignores the spirit of the book. (Which is ironic, given how much was made of their focus on the LOTR books on the set of the LOTR movies.)

 

In my opinion, Jackson also lost control of the special effects in ROTK, and this lack of control continues in The Hobbit. The special effects detract from the story.

 

I don't think Jackson got the spirit of the LOTR movies right, either. I think he spectacularly missed the point of the books, as evidenced by his editorial choices. I like the movies, but they are very different than the books.

[elegantlion]

Just a note on Fellowship of the Ring, there is a scary Balrog toward the end. First time I watched the movie I was staying with my parents while my dad was in the hospital. It was late at night and I was falling asleep while watching. The Balrog gave me nightmares. He resembles a fiery demon. It's now one of my favorite scenes in the movie, but it could be too much for a sensitive child.

[Word Nerd]

 

 

Not trying to steal thread but I haven't looked at the Hobbit threads on purpose. Still need to see the movie. Why the need for bleach.....boring, bloody, what??? Should I go first? My dcs love the book--I don't want to ruin it. They have not seen LOTR yet. I was waiting for the Hobbit.

 

 

I loved The Hobbit and completely disagree that it's bad. My mom and DH are huge LOTR and Hobbit fans, and they loved it too. YMMV. Even if you don't care for the movie, it's not going to ruin the book.

[Melinda in VT]

I don't think Jackson got the spirit of the LOTR movies right, either. I think he spectacularly missed the point of the books, as evidenced by his editorial choices. I like the movies, but they are very different than the books.

 

 

Confession: I haven't read LOTR since I was 10. Reading them was such a powerful experience that I haven't wanted to return to them because I am sure a repeat reading wouldn't be the same.

 

Your post makes me want to read them again to see if I can see what you see.

[Halftime Hope]

Yes, you should see the other two in the LOTR trilogy first, but no, it doesn't continue like that for the entire movie. There *are* some violent and slightly scary parts and some battles, but some of the best scenes in the trilogy are in ROTK. There are so very many scenes in it that make me cry. every. single. time. (And some hilarious scenes too.) There are violent battle scenes in all of the three films, but do start with Fellowship -- its opening scenes are simply beautiful (and honestly will give you a real sense of just WHY they do what they do in the other two films). They're really meant to be viewed as one continual story, so you absolutely do need to see the first part first.

 

ETA: I had read The Hobbit but not the LOTR before I saw the LOTR movies (and honestly, seeing the movies did make me interested in reading the books, whereas I had not been before; I did finish Fellowship so far), but obviously I saw the LOTR movies before I saw The Hobbit movie. I think The Hobbit movie works well as either the first part in the long series, or as a prequel, so I think you could view either the LOTR trilogy OR The Hobbit first. There were some nice nods in The Hobbit movie that you'd only get if you have seen LOTR, but I think you could see The Hobbit first without being confused either.

 

I'm not sure why anyone would bother to see the Hobbit before seeing the LOTR series since the movie only goes halfway through the book. They could, but they'd need to know that a chunk of the story was missing. It is as though they'd be able to watch 1, 3, 4, and 5, but not 2.

 

hth

[chickenpatty]

It was a violent series of books in many places so yes, the movies are as well. Why would that be surprising?

 

We actually haven't read any of the books either. I tried it as a read aloud a while back but it was really hard to get into, so we didn't get very far. DD15's sunday school class is having a LOTR movie-thon in a few days, so I was trying to #1 see what all the craze is about regarding them and #2 see if it's something that would be appropriate for her to watch.

[Halftime Hope]

We actually haven't read any of the books either. I tried it as a read aloud a while back but it was really hard to get into, so we didn't get very far. DD15's sunday school class is having a LOTR movie-thon in a few days, so I was trying to #1 see what all the craze is about regarding them and #2 see if it's something that would be appropriate for her to watch.

 

 

Chickenpatty, I'm going sure tomatoes will be thrown my way, but I don't think the LOTR trilogy is very good for a read aloud. Frankly, Tolkien had this huge alternate world in his head, but the insane amount of historical detail in the books, particularly in The Two Towers, is enough to make the eyes glaze over. For that reason, I'm an advocate of reading them on one's own, so that one can skim or skip without guilt. (Yup, I've got my tomato-proof foul-weather gear on.)

 

If a kid is really into it, they can read loving all the detail, but if a kid just wants the bones of the story and the detail in the good parts, they should be able to read it "their way."

 

I once made a Tolkien-loving friend furious by telling him that, yeah, it was a good story, but I could have written down the basics of the story line in a hundred pages and been done with it. Honestly, that's how visceral a reaction I had to the huge waste of time of all the "ad nauseum" Middle Earth historical detail in Book 2.

 

On a seperate note: your fifteen year old may very well enjoy the movie-thon, but I'd tell her that she can call for a pickup if it is too much. The ring-wraiths in the first movie would be very frightening to a kid who hasn't been exposed to evil in movies. I don't watch horror movies, and while this isn't senseless or gratuitous, they are very intense.

[mumto2]

I reread all the books about the time the last movie came out. All 4 in under two weeks so obviously they were great. The Hobbit is a great read aloud. The Fellowship I managed. The Two Towers was so slow that I finally handed them the books to finish. They did.

[maize]

Chickenpatty, I'm going sure tomatoes will be thrown my way, but I don't think the LOTR trilogy is very good for a read aloud. Frankly, Tolkien had this huge alternate world in his head, but the insane amount of historical detail in the books, particularly in The Two Towers, is enough to make the eyes glaze over. For that reason, I'm an advocate of reading them on one's own, so that one can skim or skip without guilt. (Yup, I've got my tomato-proof foul-weather gear on.)

 

If a kid is really into it, they can read loving all the detail, but if a kid just wants the bones of the story and the detail in the good parts, they should be able to read it "their way."

 

I once made a Tolkien-loving friend furious by telling him that, yeah, it was a good story, but I could have written down the basics of the story line in a hundred pages and been done with it. Honestly, that's how visceral a reaction I had to the huge waste of time of all the "ad nauseum" Middle Earth historical detail in Book 2.

 

On a seperate note: your fifteen year old may very well enjoy the movie-thon, but I'd tell her that she can call for a pickup if it is too much. The ring-wraiths in the first movie would be very frightening to a kid who hasn't been exposed to evil in movies. I don't watch horror movies, and while this isn't senseless or gratuitous, they are very intense.

 

 

Well, I won't throw tomatoes because people experience things differently and are drawn to different things. But we are reading through the trilogy as a read-aloud and my kids are always begging for more. I agree that the first book takes some time to get into, but once you do get into it the story is truly exceptional.

[Ellie]

Chickenpatty, I'm going sure tomatoes will be thrown my way, but I don't think the LOTR trilogy is very good for a read aloud. Frankly, Tolkien had this huge alternate world in his head, but the insane amount of historical detail in the books, particularly in The Two Towers, is enough to make the eyes glaze over. For that reason, I'm an advocate of reading them on one's own, so that one can skim or skip without guilt. (Yup, I've got my tomato-proof foul-weather gear on.)

 

If a kid is really into it, they can read loving all the detail, but if a kid just wants the bones of the story and the detail in the good parts, they should be able to read it "their way."

 

I once made a Tolkien-loving friend furious by telling him that, yeah, it was a good story, but I could have written down the basics of the story line in a hundred pages and been done with it. Honestly, that's how visceral a reaction I had to the huge waste of time of all the "ad nauseum" Middle Earth historical detail in Book 2.

 

On a seperate note: your fifteen year old may very well enjoy the movie-thon, but I'd tell her that she can call for a pickup if it is too much. The ring-wraiths in the first movie would be very frightening to a kid who hasn't been exposed to evil in movies. I don't watch horror movies, and while this isn't senseless or gratuitous, they are very intense.

ITA that LOTR isn't a good read-aloud, but I did enjoy all the historical detail. :-)

 

I have read the covers off two complete sets of paperbacks; I finally bought them in cloth, and will be getting them for my Nook. I cannot bear the LOTR movies because of the major plot changes (my poor Faramir!!!), so maybe I'll borrow your tomato-proof foul-weather gear, lol.

[Mrs Mungo]

Chickenpatty, I'm going sure tomatoes will be thrown my way, but I don't think the LOTR trilogy is very good for a read aloud. Frankly, Tolkien had this huge alternate world in his head, but the insane amount of historical detail in the books, particularly in The Two Towers, is enough to make the eyes glaze over. For that reason, I'm an advocate of reading them on one's own, so that one can skim or skip without guilt. (Yup, I've got my tomato-proof foul-weather gear on.)

 

If a kid is really into it, they can read loving all the detail, but if a kid just wants the bones of the story and the detail in the good parts, they should be able to read it "their way."

 

I once made a Tolkien-loving friend furious by telling him that, yeah, it was a good story, but I could have written down the basics of the story line in a hundred pages and been done with it. Honestly, that's how visceral a reaction I had to the huge waste of time of all the "ad nauseum" Middle Earth historical detail in Book 2.

 

On a seperate note: your fifteen year old may very well enjoy the movie-thon, but I'd tell her that she can call for a pickup if it is too much. The ring-wraiths in the first movie would be very frightening to a kid who hasn't been exposed to evil in movies. I don't watch horror movies, and while this isn't senseless or gratuitous, they are very intense.

 

 

I think the history is an integral part of the story. To me, saying that the history isn't necessary is like saying the French Revolution is irrelevant to Les Miserables.

[maize]

ITA that LOTR isn't a good read-aloud, but I did enjoy all the historical detail. :-)

 

I have read the covers off two complete sets of paperbacks; I finally bought them in cloth, and will be getting them for my Nook. I cannot bear the LOTR movies because of the major plot changes (my poor Faramir!!!), so maybe I'll borrow your tomato-proof foul-weather gear, lol.

 

Oh, whatever did they do to Faramir? He is one of my favorite characters in the books. I only saw the first movie--it was too dark/violent for me (I have very low tolerance levels for those things in movies) so I didn't see the others.

[Renthead Mommy]

 

The Hobbit movie isn't any bloodier than LOTR, and it's not even that the movie was especially boring. It's just bad. And it doesn't hold true to the book.

 

Jackson seems to be trying to reposition The Hobbit as a prequel to the LOTR, when really The Hobbit book has a very different feel from the trilogy. LOTR deals with epic themes of good and evil. The Hobbit book is a light-hearted adventure story for children. Jackson pretty much ignores the spirit of the book. (Which is ironic, given how much was made of their focus on the LOTR books on the set of the LOTR movies.)

 

In my opinion, Jackson also lost control of the special effects in ROTK, and this lack of control continues in The Hobbit. The special effects detract from the story.

 

 

I will say upfront I have never read any of the books. I tried the Hobbit in 6th grade and was bored and couldn't make it 30 pages. It is just not my type of reading.

 

I am however a movie person. The LOTR was very well done. The Hobbit, in comparasion to LOTR is just not there. Even not having read the book, you just get a feeling Peter Jackson sort of phoned this one in. That he had that "I'm a movie god and everyone knows it because of LOTR so you will love whatever I do Tolkien wise from this point on!" Yeah, didn't work.

 

It was a fine movie. But compared to LOTR it just isn't there. I also admit I am bothered by the spliting up that short little book into 3 movies. I totally get it with the last Harry Potters. I even sort of understand it with the Twilight's they split into two movies (I haven't read it I just know it's a big book.) However this is not that big a book. One longer movie would have been fine. Maybe even two movies. But three? That fact, along with the feeling he just didn't put the same effort in just make three movies feel greedy. In a 'let's see how much money I can milk out them!" sort of way.

[Ellie]

Oh, whatever did they do to Faramir? He is one of my favorite characters in the books. I only saw the first movie--it was too dark/violent for me (I have very low tolerance levels for those things in movies) so I didn't see the others.

 

He was not a hero. He took Frodo to Gondor (what the heck???). He was just all around sleazy. Sad, just sad.

[dbmamaz]

I read LOTR in high school and actually found it painfully boring. I thought I hadnt finished it, but when I watched the trilogy i realized I had.

 

I saw the three movies w my husband, who is a huge fan. The third movie we saw at home because we had a little one and no babysitters. My comment at the end of movie #3 was that it was all battle - dh said "Yes, thats why it felt so much shorter than (over 2 hours?).

 

I like LOTR movies, but i dont love them the way I love the Star Wars series. LOTR is much darker, much more violent, and, lets face it, a bit short on female characters (tho there are 2 memorable ones, in the movie at least - dont remember the book)

 

its not upbeat, its not light, its not happy. It was the first of its kind to create a total alternative world with its own history. (and we are doing LLLOTR w my highschooler, but i'm only reading the summaries, not the book lol)

[Ellie]

...just make three movies feel greedy. In a 'let's see how much money I can milk out them!" sort of way.

Well, isn't that the point of making a movie?

[Mrs Mungo]

I read LOTR in high school and actually found it painfully boring. I thought I hadnt finished it, but when I watched the trilogy i realized I had.

 

 

Are you sure? The end of the books isn't in the movie at all.

[maize]

He was not a hero. He took Frodo to Gondor (what the heck???). He was just all around sleazy. Sad, just sad.

 

Oh, I am sooo glad now I didn't see that movie. I would have been furious over them taking that kind of liberty with the story and characters.

[Jeannie in NJ]

to chickenpatty, I read your post to my dh and we both agree that the opening scene in Return of the King is probably the most disturbing scene (in our opinions) in all of the trilogy. Please watch the first movie, Fellowship of the Ring, the shire is so beautiful and it introduces the hobbits.

 

We love these movies, they show how evil has to be fought, even when the odds seem very overwelming and to quote Samwise Gamgee "there is good in the world". And the sacrifices that many make to stop the evil and do what has to be done. These are very well worth watching movies.

 

There is violence, there are killings but no blood splattering . Just fast forward thru any parts you may find disturbing.

[Ellie]

 

Oh, I am sooo glad now I didn't see that movie. I would have been furious over them taking that kind of liberty with the story and characters.

 

It was dreadful, and only one of the dreadful changes to the story and characters. ::weeps:: I cannot bear to watch the movies. I've tried to tell myself that it's good triumphing over evil that counts, that sometimes changes must be made to provide details that were just given as information in the books (there's a better way to describe that, but I cannot find the words in my brain cell today. Ugh.), and so on. It doesn't matter. Faramir. The Sword That was Broken. Gimli hacking away at the Ring at the Council of Elrond. Arwen the Warrior Princess. Aragorn unsure of his being King. Oh, the pain...

[Mrs Mungo]

Ellie, you should come to one of my family gatherings next time I am in Oklahoma. It would be cathartic for you to rant with everyone else.

[Harriet Vane]

I have to address the idea of LOTR not being a good read-aloud. The language is so lyrical, and so beautiful, it makes a wonderful read-aloud that must be savored. The depth of description is gorgeous. All that "slow stuff" lays a groundwork that makes the climax soooo much more powerful. It's something the Victorian writers understood (Jane Eyre, for example, or Les Miserables) and that has been lost in modern culture.

 

As for the movies--what they did was so right it was incredible. What they screwed up was so wrong it physically hurt, especially since most of the changes to the storyline were unnecessary. I enjoyed the movies a great deal, and have seen them more than once, but in so doing have to force myself to ignore those aspects that are inaccurate.

[Jeannie in NJ]

we will actually be watching Return of the King in about an hour. We watched the first two, the past 2 nights. Just something we try and do around the holidays when my dh and dd both have a month off from college. I might even try and find time to watch some of the features which I have only watched once back when we first got the dvds as soon as they came out. The features are good but many, many hours to watch.

[Alexigail]

I was personally really disturbed by the beginning of that film and I still skip it whenever we watch it.

 

If I were you, I'd just watch it first and decide for yourself what your kids can and can't handle. I really like the films, but there are things in them that I find to be unsettling. I'm not personally bothered as much by the battles as I am by the explorations of evil and how twisted the ring makes some of the characters. I do think that either way, these are films that might require discussion as you watch them.

[Ellie]

Ellie, you should come to one of my family gatherings next time I am in Oklahoma. It would be cathartic for you to rant with everyone else.

I'm packing my bags now!!!! :laugh:

[Ellie]

I have to address the idea of LOTR not being a good read-aloud. The language is so lyrical, and so beautiful, it makes a wonderful read-aloud that must be savored. The depth of description is gorgeous. All that "slow stuff" lays a groundwork that makes the climax soooo much more powerful. It's something the Victorian writers understood (Jane Eyre, for example, or Les Miserables) and that has been lost in modern culture.

Why do you have to address it? Some people like it as a read-aloud. Some don't. It's all good.

 

As for the movies--what they did was so right it was incredible. What they screwed up was so wrong it physically hurt, especially since most of the changes to the storyline were unnecessary. I enjoyed the movies a great deal, and have seen them more than once, but in so doing have to force myself to ignore those aspects that are inaccurate.

I've tried to force myself to watch, and it's just too painful, lol.

[Mrs Mungo]

I'm packing my bags now!!!! :laugh:

 

My family made Faramired a verb to use any time a book character is misrepresented in film.

[Pink Fairy]

I am a die-hard LOTR fan, bordering on fanatic. I loved the movies, except for the parts I didn't--the Faramir thing was bad, really bad. But I thought The Hobbit movie was awesome, I love how they incorporated parts from the appendices. My dd, who makes me look like an amateur and did the LLftLotR plus two books and a seminar from Joseph Pearce http://www.amazon.co... pearce tolkien, says PJ did a great job with The Hobbit and keeping it true to Tolkien's writings.

[Mrs Mungo]

I am a die-hard LOTR fan, bordering on fanatic. I loved the movies, except for the parts I didn't--the Faramir thing was bad, really bad. But I thought The Hobbit movie was awesome, I love how they incorporated parts from the appendices. My dd, who makes me look like an amateur and did the LLftLotR plus two books and a seminar from Joseph Pearce http://www.amazon.co... pearce tolkien, says PJ did a great job with The Hobbit and keeping it true to Tolkien's writings.

 

I *did* like The Hobbit for this reason. I *really* liked that they kept some of the songs. I wish they had kept the goblin song. Swish, smack! Whip crack! Smash, grab! pinch, nab!

[Ellie]

I am a die-hard LOTR fan, bordering on fanatic. I loved the movies, except for the parts I didn't--the Faramir thing was bad, really bad. But I thought The Hobbit movie was awesome, I love how they incorporated parts from the appendices. My dd, who makes me look like an amateur and did the LLftLotR plus two books and a seminar from Joseph Pearce http://www.amazon.co... pearce tolkien, says PJ did a great job with The Hobbit and keeping it true to Tolkien's writings.

 

I was satisfied with The Hobbit. I was shocked, at first, when Bilbo started his journal the way he did, with all that history, but then I realized that the history needed to be there, and that the journal was a good place to put it. It was that way throughout the movie (such as when Gandalf met with Galadriel, Elrond, and Saruman. We needed to know about Saruman's deception.) Mostly all I cared about was that Bilbo found the Ring, and that when he goes home he keeps it hidden. :-) Oh, and I loved Richard Armitage as Thorin. :-)

[Pink Fairy]

Thorin was...surprisingly attractive. :)