#gandolf the slay

[kuromamesblog]

Gandolf big naturals mood board 🥰

[gandolfbignaturals]

Trans Rights!

What I love most about Gandalf big naturals is how much it eases my chest dysphoria. I can sleep without a shirt on now because of Gandalf Big Naturals. Knowing that the artist made the original image while recovering from top surgery and said the image was like a final parting gift from their boobs makes me feel even better about the image's effect on me. Men with big naturals makes me feel much more good about my body than those old posts on here that were like "trans men! Some men have pecs!!! So don't feel dysphoric <3". It's much more meaningful to see a hairy, bearded man with a huge H cup rack not letting his tits get in the way of his masculinity.

Most of all, Gandalf Big Naturals helped me love my body the way it is instead of hating something that's a part of me. Of course I still want top surgery but the fact that I can live with my own big naturals until then without wanting to guillotine them off is really important.

[theantisocialcritic]

Archive Project - December 17, 2013 - Hobbit: DoS Review

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, 2013 Peter Jackson 161 Minutes Watch the trailer here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPVWy1tFXuc —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— The Hobbit is a very odd book, so i've been told. From what i've been told by others who have read it, J.R.R. Tolkien didn't write the book from a traditional standpoint in terms of plot or story structure. I haven't actually read it but i'm getting a sense from watching the movie adaptions how weird it was. Its been about a decade now since the Lord of the Rings Trilogy wrapped up, cementing itself into the public psyche as one of the most unique book adaptions and amazing epic trilogies of all time. For those who don't know, The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers and Return of the King are all film adaptions of books by previously mentioned writer J.R.R Tolkien. The films were hugely successful and are still talked about commonly a decade after their release. Naturally with a success like this, Warner Bros had to find a way to keep making movies for the series. The logical answer: an adaption of The Hobbit, in all it's weirdness. The problem with this logical answer being that The Hobbit is a totally different creature to The Lord of the Rings. The main trilogy is a fantasy epic, with each of it's books extending more than a thousand pages each in some prints. The Hobbit is a children's storybook, only around 300 pages. So Warner Bros logical solution: adaption the shortest book in the series into a epic fantasy trilogy like that of the Lord of the Rings…. apparently… The story of The Hobbit is rather easy to sum up. A group of dwarves, a wizard and a cowardly young Hobbit go on an adventure to slay a Dragon that destroyed the dwarves' kingdom long ago and take back the lonely mountain, home of the dwarves' treasures. In summary, not as epic as Froto's quest to deliver the Ring of Power to Mt. Mordor to stop the evil Lord Sauron from rising from the grave and taking over middle-earth, but hey, thats what you get with a kids story. Don't get me wrong though, the first two Hobbit movies have been really good. Not only do these films capture the wonderful aesthetic of the original trilogy but they manage to stand by themselves and genuinely fun action-adventure movies. The Desolation of Smaug goes a bit further than it's predecessor though by addressing some of the pacing issues rampant throughout the original. It also brings back major characters from the original trilogy, most notably Legolas, the wood elf, as well as introducing new characters like Tauriel. Whats interesting about Tauriel in particular is that she isn't in the original Hobbit. This is how the Hobbit Trilogy gets around it's lack of source material. Taking in bits of the Middle-Earth canon that aren't addressed in the book and introducing new characters fills the run-time for the trilogy in between plot points. Though it would seem like padding, it does help in some areas. In the book, Gandolf, the wizard, would sporadically abandon the party to address issues outside of the story. Desolation of Smaug addresses this detail by showing Gandolf's diversions and tying them back into the Lord of the Rings Trilogy in an awesome way. Fans of the book might, and have vocally, noted the "The Hobbit" technically isn't the main character in this chapter of the story. While Bilbo Baggins, the hobbit, was more central to the story in The Hobbit: And Unexpected Jouney, the role of primary protagonist falls to the dwarf king Thorin Oakenshield. If this sounds disappointing, don't worry. Thorin is an awesome character with strong motivations and a powerful backstory. You can complain all you want the The Hobbit's main character isn't "The Hobbit" but  shifting the focus to another character doesn't equate to bad as far as i'm concerned. Shifting over the the visual side of the film, the CGI used throughout the film is oddly on and off in it's quality. Many scenes, most notably ones with the Orcs, have really shabby visual effects that stick out. Unlike the original trilogy, Peter Jackson decided to use CGI on it's orcs instead of rubber costumes. This is most likely because of the limited release window for all three movies and he didn't want to have to go through the difficulty of costume work beyond what was necessary for the dwarves. That being said, visual effects don't define a movie. Effects can enhance a film, but merely having good or bad effects doesn't necessarily determine the quality of the film. Take films like Transformers or Avatar, both visually intense films that ultimately lack the substance under the flare to match it. Alternatively, look at a film like Starship Troopers. It has bad CGI, but it succeeds in it's goal of being cheesy while still conveying it's message. So while The Hobbit does have a lot of bad CGI effects, I cannot describe enough how much the film makes up for it in the end... One word….. Smaug! Smog, the dragon, is in all honesty one of the best computer generated effects I have ever seen put to film. This guy is so awesome he could give Alduin a run for his money. Voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch, Sma-ow-gah manages to be the most commanding character in the movie. His dialog scene with Bilbo, like the Golem scene in An Unexpected Journey, can easily be stated as the highlight of the movie. Every poorly done effect in the film can comfortably overlooked with the understanding that all the time and money that would have gone into the orcs went into making Sm-eo-geh as visually striking and impressive as he is. Trust me, if you thought that the trailers gave too much of him away, the didn't. In the long run of CGI effects, I think I can say that Smaug is probably among to most impressive technical achievements done since Golem was introduced in Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. It does end of a bit of a sour note, pulling an infamous "Empire Strikes Back" to tease The Hobbit: There and Back Again but I don't personally feel that it detracts from the movie. More so it just makes me impatient for next December. Overall, its not a perfect movie. It pails in comparison to the Lord of the Rings (as does most of modern hollywood) but as far as awesome movies go, The Hobbit trilogy so far stands among the best films to be released in the past few years. Overlook the issues and what you get is an exciting ride through an awesome fantasy world that is well worth the price of admission. I am looking forward till next December to finally conclude the trilogy! It is worth noting that the film did get released in the new, hyped 48 frames per second version that has gained a lot of talk around hollywood. Honestly, don't bother with it. Go see this film in blissful 2D and don't worry about the frame-rate. —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is now in theaters! Thank you for reading! Live long and prosper!

[halloweenfor]

TV / Movie Costumes - Lord of the Rings Pipe of Gandalf the Grey Prop Replica

Theme Halloween Costumes

Lord of the Rings Costumes

Wizard’s Weapon of ChoiceAll heroes have a weapon of choice. Legolas uses the Mirkwood Bow to keep the orcs at bay. Aragon uses his sword Anduril to slay the forces of evil. Frodo uses Sting to defend himself from Sauron’s cronies. And Gandolf? Well, you might assume that he prefers Glamdring or maybe that handy staff that he wields during The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring, but that’s not the case. Gandolf doesn’t care much for fighting and he’d much rather be using his pipe as his “weapon of choice.”Product DetailsIf you plan on cosplaying as the iconic JRR Tolkien wizard, then you’d better come prepared with his weapon of choice! This Lord of the Rings Gandalf the Grey Pipe Prop Replica is crafted using the molds from the original pipe used in the film. It’s made from a urethane material and measures 13 inches long. It’s a collectible replica, so it’s not actually intended for use as an actual pipe, but it does make for one awesome costume accessory when you dress up as Gandalf the Grey! And when you’re all done dressing up as the wizard, you can set it on your mantle as a collectible display piece from Lord of the Rings.

See Details & Get More Deals at: Best Halloween Costumes 2019 :: Shop

[adhoption]

I’m sorry, but I do have to agree with the clown.

I love LotR, but the battles do always seem to end in glorious victories, and the Good Warrior Kings are encouraged to go to war and crush the baddies before being showered in glory and lauded for how many enemies they can slay. 

The story, as with the Hobbit, is effectively Gandalf visiting a succession of rulers and warmongering to stop them sitting around and go and vanquish evil and shaming those who don’t.

The foe are always evil others who can be dehumanised and massacred without guilt, or generic ‘foreigners’, so war is seen as this great and uncontroversial thing. Yes, the bad war machine was portrayed as bad, but it was shown as needing a good war machine to stop it, and good army was portrayed as flawless and heroic and not causing destruction to the environment or corruption to personalities, which is an unrealistic, glorified portrayal.

Whereas ASOIAF admits the reality that even the armies of ‘good guys’ with good intentions lead to awful consequences. It doesn’t polarise between the perfect heroes and the irredeemable villains, but goes out of its way to show the flawed-but-human side of both. It rejects the idea of a good cause. It portrays war as messy, almost never achieving its aims beyond pushing the border back and forth and leading to stand-offs and sieges where armies lose faith or starve or freeze or get dysentry and the common people drafted in suffer under uncaring commanders.

It shows that the soldiers on the other side are people with their own fears and loved ones or your neighbours or brothers or friends. It really shows the effect of war on the landscape, the farmlands destroyed and drained by the needs of an army, the civilians caught up in the maelstrom of dirt and blood and the churned-up no-man’s-land which results for miles around, orphans huddled in the ruins of their homes as they stave off the desperate raids of broken men.

The checkmarks contradict each other. LotR is based on hope and friendship, has more epic battles, and has no rape, all of which correlate with the fact that is shows war as a glorious adventure for noble heroes, where GoT shows the reality that yes, when soldiers advance in the real world incidences of rape follow them, and there isn’t much hope or friendship, and it isn’t good for your soul, because war is a horrible thing which brings about horrible consequences for everyone for miles around.

a homegrown meme for today