The Hobbit’s official movie books really push the original timeline as the film one (despite 0 aging of characters in flashbacks pfft) BUT they also present Balin as the most ‘aged’ of the Company in both appearance and description at 178, despite Thorin — visibly far younger — being 17 years older than him.
It’s a conundrum, but I got an idea when I noticed Dwalin in the books supposedly lives to 340, even though a dwarf living to just 300 is supposed to be as rare as a human making it to 100! There’s been arguments that that was just a ‘typo’ on Tolkien’s part, but what if it wasn’t? What if we roll with that? Dwalin did look shockingly younger than Balin even though he’s just 9 years younger! That’s just 3 if you take it in human years!
So, using that 340 as inspiration and a base line, what if we say the direct line of Durin the Deathless plus the occasional offshoot like Dwalin just age slower than the typical dwarf? That their max baseline is closer to 300-350 or even 350-400 versus the usual 250-300? Because, if we go with, say, 400 as Thorin’s base max, suddenly we go from ‘Thorin should look older than Balin’ to ‘he’s in the human equivalent of his late 40s,’ and that seems much closer to the slightly aged up Richard Armitage we got in movies, doesn’t it?
This would also mean Thorin IS older than Balin despite their dynamic, but hey—sometimes your younger cousin is just wiser than you. 😂
41 notes
·
View notes
So I went to the wiki page for the henghill Bullet & Brain mission of 2.2 looking for some dialogue I had missed and
a) I found something incredibly tasty that slotted into some other thoughts I'd been having, more on that on another day, and
b) I saw this super fun little trivia at the bottom, which!
I knew Penacony characters like Boothill took a lot of inspirations from old movies, but I didn't realize it was even in his and Dan Heng's relationship, that's so cool!!
It fits them very well, it's such a fun reference. "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" was an old buddy Western film (from 1969- nice) about a pair of outlaws. Butch Cassidy was the leader of a gang, and described as clever, affable, and talkative. Meanwhile, his closest companion, the Sundance Kid, was known as a man of few words.
Cassidy's original birth name was much more plain, but similar to Boothill, he took on a new moniker when he became an outlaw. "Cassidy" had been the last name of his beloved mentor, who taught him how to shoot and ride. And Sundance Kid was known as he was because Sundance was the name of his hometown, and it was the only place that had ever managed to catch and jail him, back when he'd been younger (also similar to Dan Heng, but ouch).
These two stick together like glue throughout the length of the film- through Cassidy's leadership of the gang being challenged, through a train robbery gone wrong, through being pursued by mercenaries, and even through fleeing to Bolivia and trying to start over together.
I don't want to say too much more, since the mission title is referencing one specific movie that I've never seen. I kinda wanna watch it now, though, just to see the inspiration that went into Boothill and Dan Heng and how they get along. I just think it's really sweet that these two were literally made to be the best of bros, how lovely is that. 💕
40 notes
·
View notes
whats the tea on kd leaving the warriors? i was a casual fan at the time it happened so i don't know the situation
well... let me be brief (1/278)
lmao jk but.... well a lot! and most of it is speculation, etcetc ofc we'll never truly know until 20 years later when the last dance-esque documentary comes out about the warriors in the steph curry era lmao-- but the story goes like this:
kevin durant was the superstar of okc thunder and was steadily building up the franchise over the years to become serious contenders for a championship. they were always close, but had never quite made it. but with a good FO/org behind him, westbrook by his side, they were always really close— but again, as we all know, it was never enough (made the finals in 2012. lost. would make the playoffs but always got defeated). in 2016, they once again get really close at the western conference finals where they led the series 3-1 against the warriors. despite that they lose. a mere month later, he joins the warriors: a team that's obviously at the beginning of a dynasty— they won a championship in 2015 and made it into the finals in 2016. but more importantly, the team that beat kevin durant and okc thunder at the conference finals.
there were layers to this "betrayal" and to this day people still think this one decision "ruined the sport" (lol). people saw it as a betrayal on KD's part and it took an incredible hit to his reputation. you almost make it to the finals, you have an incredible teammate in westbrook by your side, an org that supports you and is willing to uplift you to your highest star potential, and you leave? to join the team that BEAT you? to the team that has steph curry, klay thompson, draymond green, andre iguodala?
already a hugely successful team without KD, but with him, it was undeniable. a superteam. yeah, a lot of team has duos or trios. lebron and kyrie, lebron and dwade, harden and cp3, etcetc. but this team was different levels. a whole team full. the team was 73-9 without KD. massively talented already. but now? steph, KD, klay as offensive threats. draymond and andre as defensive threats. insanely good roleplayers like shaun livingston.
everyone was livid. not just OKC fans. everyone in the league! the warriors, and KD's name specifically was tarnished. how disrespectful for the warriors to even think about creating a team like this. how disrespectful for KD to leave an org that's done so much for him. sports media was tearing into them, fans were tearing into them, they were quite literally, the most hated north american sports team. fans were burning jerseys, making videos threatening KD, etc.
we all know how KD with the warriors went. winning fixes all, right? arguably the most dominant team in nba history (2017 warriors vs 1996 bulls a common debate to this day), the warriors absolutely dominated the nba, and went on to win the 2017 and 2018 championships. KD finally gets his two rings and a FMVP. and the warriors still stay the most hated team in the league. you either loved the warriors or hated them! no in between. the narrative is that KD's rings were called into question because he "had a superteam" so they weren't "valid".
2018-2019 is when it all kinda starts falling apart. the warriors are plagued with injuries, and it's just clear they don't have the synergy and chemistry that they did before. it was most clear during a game against the clippers where draymond and kd visibly fought after a bad play at the end where draymond refused to pass to kd. draymond had allegedly yelled at kd and told him to just leave the warriors, and that they didn't need him (kd's contract was up that year as well). KD has said in later years that that argument was kind of like the ~last straw for him and the nail in the coffin for him leaving. he had already been having feelings of being "the odd man out"— though they were winning together and had good synergy on court, the core3 plus the other players were already a tight knit family long before he had arrived. after the incident with draymond, the team never really sat down and talked about it: just brushed it under the rug (dray was suspended for one game but nothing was talked about). KD felt like it was a slap in the face, all this stuff about how gsw is known for good team chemistry and good culture but they just wanted to brush that very public incident under the rug? after that he started playing more selfishly— less like how they would play as a team and more in isolation. KD gets injured during the finals, and as we know, klay gets injured as well: we lose the finals. we don't get the sought after three-peat. KD signs with the brooklyn nets and the rest is history.
i talked a lot about the beginning of KD signing on to the warriors because i feel like that was really the root of why he left. he became one of the most hated players in north american sports. his own fans tore into him. sports media all tore into him. calling him mentally weak, pathetic, etc. and does winning fix all? i feel like KD with the warriors was proof that... it doesn't. KD gets two rings that he basically sold his soul to the devil for AND two FMVPs and people still don't respect him. on top of that he wins it with the warriors: which has always been and will always be Steph Curry's Team. yeah he was integral to those wins, but you can't compete with how steph has built the dynasty, yk? what steph has given to the warriors.
so at the end of the day, the story goes like this: KD "betrays" okc by going to the team who beat him in the conference finals, creates the first real "superteam" in the nba (the superteam discourse is a whole other thing smh like teams aren't trying to do that now but i digress). the whole sports world is going in on him, he's basically sold his soul for these rings. he gets his rings, he gets his FMVP. but his legacy and reputation is still called into question: he's integral but still won his rings and his FMVPs on STEPH CURRYs team, not his. Steph's. on top of all the outside noise, internally he's not happy either. he doesn't feel protected within the team. he has beef with draymond, and steph/klay + the franchise will clearly always have their loyalty to draymond. he doesn't buy into the team culture anymore, and he feels like the odd one out. the only thing that could make him stay would be to keep winning more rings. but the two rings he has didn't fix anything. so why stay? what does he have going for him?
(he goes on to bounce between different teams, tries to build his own superteams but never comes as close as he did. meanwhile steph klay and draymond go through a tough two years, considerably the lowest two years in the steph/core3 era, and come out on top: they win the '22 finals, against a celtics team that had an 84% chance of winning the finals. they save their dynasty, their legacy. steph proves that he won a chip BEFORE KD, during KD, and AFTER KD as well.)
19 notes
·
View notes
29/6 - valentino
11/7 - marc
both 'pecco doesn't have to prove that he earned those titles by beating the marc marquez' and 'pecco should embrace the challenge of testing himself against the marc marquez' are takes I fundamentally agree with, but of course there's still something fun about how it's basically mind games by proxy from these two. neither of them are wrong! but the contrast is still pleasing. it stems from their fundamentally oppositional relationships wrt pecco, where valentino functions as The Mentor and marc functions as The Rival. valentino is emphasising pecco's existing status in the sport by offering a reminder of the world championships he already has, in order to minimise the importance of next year's battle and the pressure on his protege. marc is emphasising the status imbalance between himself and pecco by offering a reminder of how marc has more titles than pecco, in order to heighten the importance of next year's battle and increase the pressure on his rival. the two statements end up mirroring each other quite nicely, right?
you see it in how valentino positions the battle as something that's been hyped as the press, as something that's more illusory than 'real', versus marc implicitly challenging pecco by saying pecco should surely be seeking to challenge him. valentino will not go so far as to suggest pecco will beat marc - all he's saying is the outcome does not reflect on the fact that pecco WAS already the strongest (past tense). valentino's removed from the action, he can't make any promises on behalf of another rider, he deliberately refrains from placing more pressure on pecco by engaging in any way with his chances of winning next year... whereas marc very much argue his own case, saying that he believes he will win at least one more title (which would most likely involve beating pecco). valentino says pecco doesn't need this challenge, whereas marc suggests pecco should want it. and more than that - what marc is saying the challenge isn't just facing marc on the same bike, it's the fact that pecco's team decided to put him there. that they invited marc into pecco's house. marc speaks of all that pecco has to lose, while valentino speaks of all that pecco cannot have taken away from him
I don't want to read too much into the phrasing here since I'm aware the translation may be imperfect... but valentino both explicitly ("he will have a very uncomfortable teammate") AND implicitly "[pecco] has everything he needs to keep up with [marc]") acknowledges just how big a challenge this will be. uncomfortable - not just because marc is hard to beat but because he is a bastard of a teammate. keep up - not even beat, because just matching marc isn't going to be easy. and marc isn't being shy either about how hard defeating him will be for pecco, pointing out they will be on equal machinery for the first time, that marc still has more titles, that pecco still hasn't shown he has what it takes to match marc under those circumstnaces. still, marc is coming for pecco because right now pecco's on top of the mountain - pecco is the one with the results, the momentum, the "mental stability" (jorge martin girl stand up)
I don't know. I'm really fond of how pecco has ended up being positioned between the two of them. pecco's unique narrative role is such that if anything, the marc/valentino axis is de-emphasised. it still matters, but it's very much the hypotenuse. this isn't just a continuation of an old feud, it's not just two legacies facing off or the title race or any of that - because it's pecco's legacy that's being litigated as much as anything else. pecco's primary objective is not protecting valentino's title count, and valentino's advisory role is centred around pecco's objectives rather than his own... his desires and hopes in that capacity are subservient to pecco's. marc isn't there primarily to match/overtake valentino, he's there to beat the current king in his own castle and to win titles for himself. they mirror each other and oppose each other... but ultimately, it's still pecco who currently sits at the centre of that triangle. he's the one who the other two are primarily focused on. quite a unique position, especially for a rider who has been so publicly wrestled with how he compares to those particular legends of the sport. quite the task ahead of him. quite the challenge
15 notes
·
View notes