The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Review Thread (Spoilers)

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by Velmeran

While I personally thought the portrayal of Radagast was a bit over the top, none of it was really that for out of character with what little we actually know about Radagast the Brown.

[Show spoiler]

From Unfinished Tales, The Istari (Page 390 in my HMCO 1st/1st edition)


Additionally while Radagast was sent from the Valar, he was not one of the initial 3 chosen by the Valar (that would have been Curumo (Saruman), Olorin (Gandalf) and Alatar). Yavanna (wife of Aule) forced/begged Curumo to take Aiwdendil (Radagast) with him.

From Unfinished Tales, The Istari (Page 393)


And being a Mair of Yavanna, it isn't outside the realm that Radagast would actually be more concerned with the fauna and flora.

From Unfinished Tales, The Istari (picking up from the last quote)


And a bit more to show that perhaps Radagast wasn't as well received in the from of Istari.
From Unfinished Tales, The Istari (picking up from the last quote)

Great post. It's been years since I've read Unfinished Tales, this has made me want to pick it up again (although I do also have a desire to plow through all of History of Middle-Earth so it may be a while before I get round to it).

[JamesKurtovich]

Apparently the Tolkiens disliked it, although they haven't watched it.

http://www.heroesandhellions.com/dai...to-the-hobbit/

Not surprising and I don't blame them. I agree that the story was butchered to make it more universally approachable (i.e. Hollywood) but I think it came out great in the end. I also think this will bring Tolkien's works to millions of new readers and fans.

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by JamesKurtovich

Apparently the Tolkiens disliked it, although they haven't watched it.

http://www.heroesandhellions.com/dai...to-the-hobbit/

Not surprising and I don't blame them. I agree that the story was butchered to make it more universally approachable (i.e. Hollywood) but I think it came out great in the end. I also think this will bring Tolkien's works to millions of new readers and fans.

The interview was conducted even before the three film split was announced - I can only imagine Christopher's reaction to that! So he'd seen extremely little of The Hobbit there, I doubt he'd have even watched the teaser trailer.

I do see his point, I really do, and I'd imagine I'd feel the same way if I was in his situation. But I still believe Christopher goes overboard in his attacks on the films, especially sight unseen. Yes, they have been made into modern films and contain some of the trappings that you would expect, and changes to characters and situations have occurred. But a lot of Tolkien remains in the film franchise, in tone and theme. All of it? No, it's an adaptation. But a lot of it, more than a lot of the book purists would acknowledge because they are too hung up on the alterations or choices that they disagree with.

And it's an old argument but these films have brought a whole new generation to Tolkien's world and his books - all of the source material has had a boost from these films, even the more obscure ones as the '15 - 25 year olds' he dismisses these films as being targeted towards discover Middle-Earth and continue past LOTR and The Hobbit onto the other texts. Does all the audience do this? Of course not. But there are a lot that do.

Interestingly, the rest of the Tolkien family have mixed feelings towards the films. I believe Christopher's son doesn't mind them (much for the reasoning above, that it brings attention back to the originals) and his son enjoys them so much that he has a cameo in ROTK as a Gondorian guard.

[JamesKurtovich]

Originally Posted by Buddy Ackerman

Interestingly, the rest of the Tolkien family have mixed feelings towards the films. I believe Christopher's son doesn't mind them (much for the reasoning above, that it brings attention back to the originals) and his son enjoys them so much that he has a cameo in ROTK as a Gondorian guard.

I didn't know that. Very cool.

The films have their bad (mostly the action scenes involving Legolas and Gimli), but without them, I doubt I'd know ANYTHING about LOTR or Middle-Earth. So I'm forever in PJ's debt.

[Velmeran]

I can't even begin to count the number of Tolkien fans I've encountered on various Tolkien sites -- that came to know and love JRR Tolkien's works after seeing the LotR films.

I know not everyone in this way, but for a lot of people after they saw the films they went and read the books -- and from there they jumped further into the lore and history of Middle-earth, searching for every detail they could get their hands on.

So while I do see where Christopher is coming from, I also can see the other side and see how the films have helped bring even more awareness to an author and world (that if we're being honest really didn't need the help that much, with the exception of this latest generation maybe).

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Buddy Ackerman

Ernest, your argument is verging very closely to splitting people simply into 'real fans' and 'apologists' and you're usually better than to revert to such a mindless internet cliche like that.

Bad inarticulate choice of words on my part. Running a 102 fever right now. Sometimes not at my best. Some fans of Tolkien who are very protective of him were disappointed by the low comedy. I think that's far more accurate and less inflamatory phrasing. Apologies.

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Bad inarticulate choice of words on my part. Running a 102 fever right now. Sometimes not at my best. Some fans of Tolkien who are very protective of him were disappointed by the low comedy. I think that's far more accurate and less inflamatory phrasing. Apologies.

No need to apologise at all. Although we seem to disagree as much as we agree (e.g. the Spielberg debate in the Star Wars thread right now) I respect you very much as a commentator on these boards, you're one of the smart ones. Which is why it was so odd for you to reduce your argument down to such a simple division, it seemed out of character.

Hope you feel better soon

[Kaiju]

Originally Posted by JamesKurtovich

Apparently the Tolkiens disliked it, although they haven't watched it.

http://www.heroesandhellions.com/dai...to-the-hobbit/

Not surprising and I don't blame them. I agree that the story was butchered to make it more universally approachable (i.e. Hollywood) but I think it came out great in the end. I also think this will bring Tolkien's works to millions of new readers and fans.

What a bunch of a douche-Baggins...

Too much?

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by JamesKurtovich

Apparently the Tolkiens disliked it, although they haven't watched it.

http://www.heroesandhellions.com/dai...to-the-hobbit/

Not surprising and I don't blame them. I agree that the story was butchered to make it more universally approachable (i.e. Hollywood) but I think it came out great in the end. I also think this will bring Tolkien's works to millions of new readers and fans.

Originally Posted by Buddy Ackerman

I do see his point, I really do, and I'd imagine I'd feel the same way if I was in his situation. But I still believe Christopher goes overboard in his attacks on the films, especially sight unseen. Yes, they have been made into modern films and contain some of the trappings that you would expect, and changes to characters and situations have occurred. But a lot of Tolkien remains in the film franchise, in tone and theme. All of it? No, it's an adaptation. But a lot of it, more than a lot of the book purists would acknowledge because they are too hung up on the alterations or choices that they disagree with.

And it's an old argument but these films have brought a whole new generation to Tolkien's world and his books - all of the source material has had a boost from these films, even the more obscure ones as the '15 - 25 year olds' he dismisses these films as being targeted towards discover Middle-Earth and continue past LOTR and The Hobbit onto the other texts. Does all the audience do this? Of course not. But there are a lot that do.

The following quote of Christopher sums up the feeling of many Tolkien scholars and enthusiasts:

"Tolkien has become a monster, devoured by his own popularity and absorbed into the absurdity of our time,” Christopher Tolkien observes sadly. “The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has overwhelmed me. The commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing. There is only one solution for me: to turn my head away.”

I personally enjoy the movies, being eager to see anything of Middle-earth on film. My greatest lament is conceiving of what the films could have been, given the magnitude of time, effort, and funding invested in them. Putting aside relatively minor issues (such as the logistical ridiculousness of having the elvish army at Erebor when the dragon attacks, etc.), my biggest beef is the misrepresentation of characters for which Jackson and Boyens apparently have little regard. Tolkien put a considerable amount of thought developing his characters (ref. the 12-volume 'The History of Middle-earth' series), and they all have specific meaning and symbolic significance. For example, a recent and very interesting discussion on this thread concerns the character of Radagast, a 'wizard' - translated from the (elvish) Quenya 'istar' as:

"one of the members of an "order"... claiming to possess, and exhibiting, eminent knowledge of the history and nature of the World'... sent to Middle-earth with the consent of Eru [God] when the shadow of Sauron began to grow again."

There is no doubt that the Istari shared personality traits (pride, arrogance, humility, etc.) similar to the other beings they were directed to help. But does anyone familiar with this story (other than Jackson and Boyens) think that one of them would be so oblivious (borderline mentally deficient?) as to walk around with birdshit on his head? Of course in the 'Hobbit Chronicles' book, one of the art personnel called this "genius", but I would argue otherwise. Detail is what separates Tolkien's Middle-earth saga from "the rest" of fiction, and it is details, especially the character details, that decreases the value and impact of the films. Tolkien was upset at what many would consider minor character deviations considered by an early filmmaker (Morton Grady Zimmerman). One can imagine what he would think about the distortions in the Jackson films.

On a certain level, one could argue that these liberal interpretations make the films more "accessible", for example, many 14-year old boys may have got a laugh at the crap on Radagast's head. But on another level, it is these details that take away from the credibility of the films, reduces their "substance", and represents a waste of the enormous effort from the hundreds of dedicated people involved with its production.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

The following quote of Christopher sums up the feeling of many Tolkien scholars and enthusiasts:

"Tolkien has become a monster, devoured by his own popularity and absorbed into the absurdity of our time,” Christopher Tolkien observes sadly. “The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has overwhelmed me. The commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing. There is only one solution for me: to turn my head away.”

I personally enjoy the movies, being eager to see anything of Middle-earth on film. My greatest lament is conceiving of what the films could have been, given the magnitude of time, effort, and funding invested in them. Putting aside relatively minor issues (such as the logistical ridiculousness of having the elvish army at Erebor when the dragon attacks, etc.), my biggest beef is the misrepresentation of characters for which Jackson and Boyens apparently have little regard. Tolkien put a considerable amount of thought developing his characters (ref. the 12-volume 'The History of Middle-earth' series), and they all have specific meaning and symbolic significance. For example, a recent and very interesting discussion on this thread concerns the character of Radagast, a 'wizard' - translated from the (elvish) Quenya 'istar' as:

"one of the members of an "order"... claiming to possess, and exhibiting, eminent knowledge of the history and nature of the World'... sent to Middle-earth with the consent of Eru [God] when the shadow of Sauron began to grow again."

There is no doubt that the Istari shared personality traits (pride, arrogance, humility, etc.) similar to the other beings they were directed to help. But does anyone familiar with this story (other than Jackson and Boyens) think that one of them would be so oblivious (borderline mentally deficient?) as to walk around with birdshit on his head? Of course in the 'Hobbit Chronicles' book, one of the art personnel called this "genius", but I would argue otherwise. Detail is what separates Tolkien's Middle-earth saga from "the rest" of fiction, and it is details, especially the character details, that decreases the value and impact of the films. Tolkien was upset at what many would consider minor character deviations considered by an early filmmaker (Morton Grady Zimmerman). One can imagine what he would think about the distortions in the Jackson films.

On a certain level, one could argue that these liberal interpretations make the films more "accessible", for example, many 14-year old boys may have got a laugh at the crap on Radagast's head. But on another level, it is these details that take away from the credibility of the films, reduces their "substance", and represents a waste of the enormous effort from the hundreds of dedicated people involved with its production.

I know Tolkien was not a fan of Disney's films, but didn't Walt own rights to the Hobbit for a while? I think his team couldn't crack it (especially in the borderline bankruptcy years after WWII) -- do you know anything about any of their attempts at adaptation? Thanks, GB.

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

There is no doubt that the Istari shared personality traits (pride, arrogance, humility, etc.) similar to the other beings they were directed to help. But does anyone familiar with this story (other than Jackson and Boyens) think that one of them would be so oblivious (borderline mentally deficient?) as to walk around with birdshit on his head? Of course in the 'Hobbit Chronicles' book, one of the art personnel called this "genius", but I would argue otherwise. Detail is what separates Tolkien's Middle-earth saga from "the rest" of fiction, and it is details, especially the character details, that decreases the value and impact of the films. Tolkien was upset at what many would consider minor character deviations considered by an early filmmaker (Morton Grady Zimmerman). One can imagine what he would think about the distortions in the Jackson films.

Quote of the day... This was my point exactly when I said my largest beef of this film was with Radagast and his portrayal. To me, Radagast in this film was the Jar Jar of Middle Earth. Meant for comic relief, but done very very poorly. Now I don't know much about Radagast, but to my understanding, he was eccentric, and loved nature. I pictured him more like Obi Wan Kenobi that can talk to birds... (my interpretation may be off due to my lack of knowledge) but theres a big difference.

I just rewatched the Hobbit production diaries the other night, and I remember hearing someone say that they believed that everyone would Love the Radagast character. That actually irritated me, quite a bit, as much as Lauren Shuler Donner saying how much everyone would LOVE the interpretation of DeadPool in X-Men Origins, and as much as Boyens talking about the "great improvements" that they made to Tolkiens world.

Now I am no Tolkien scholar, most of my knowledge comes from the vast knowledge of others on this site. But I did read LotR before the films, twice. And I also read The Hobbit probably 5 or 6 times before the films. I missed soooo much until I started discussing it. But even before I understood, this Radagast thing would have really pissed me off, way more than the Saruman death thing, probably about as much as the Gandalf/Witch King thing, but not nearly as much as the Arwen at the Ford of Bruinen thing.

But come on man, when you're trying to convey the seriousness of Tolkiens work, such as the struggles of a group of Dwarves trying to recapture their homeland from a beastly dragon, showing this danger by escalating the importance of Azog the defiler, building suspense by talking about The Necromancer and the Witch King of Angmar, making tie ins to the Lord of the Rings everywhere, and then just out of nowhere you got this guy talking like he's got no idea whats going, with a birds nest under his hat, birdshit on his face, gives mouth to mouth to porcupine or something, then blows pot smoke out his ears... to me it just took away from the validity of the film, and credibility of the film maker.

Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed the film for the most part, there was some excellent stuff, I just really did not see the need for this character at all. Other than the slapstick comedy that apparently is to cater to the dick and fart joke crowd.

One thing I did enjoy though, which many people have a problem with, was Ori... I don't see anything wrong with his character, and I certainly don't see the "mentally handicapped" aspect, I just see a really nice easy going polite dwarf... that was the kind of stuff that I enjoyed, "I don't like green food" I still repeat that to myself and laugh Its a reminder of

"Lembas Bread, one small bite can fill the stomach of a grown man"

"How many did you eat Pippin"

"Four"

Love that scene.

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by ashedmaniac

I can't speak toward its authenticity as an adaptation (to me, it does not enter into a conversation about an alternate version - which must stand on its own)...but, for a character who lives alone aside from animals and appears completely self-sufficient in doing so, I don't particularly see why he'd care about the bird excrement (and I find the suggestion that someone who puts compassion for animals before social norms they don't actually even have to deal with the vast majority of the time as being "borderline mentally deficient" to be rather insulting). And I'm wondering why other people are obsessing about it. The modern cultural equivalent - in terms of appearance/isolation-related issues - might be some "basement dweller" who rarely goes outside that answers the door in an undershirt with Cheeto stains on it. Why would he care? To me, it seems he wouldn't. Does it make sense that such things are there? Yeah. So, once again - outside the adaptation aspect, which I'm aware is what it was mostly being commented upon as...why does this element matter to people so much? I'm asking as a legitimate question because I don't understand. Is it only within that framework (as seeming an inaccurate adaptation to many)?

I'm getting the impression that people think it's something there purely for comedic effect. Which I don't grasp because it appears to me as a character trait (thus, at least not "merely" an attempt to make fourteen-year-olds laugh) that he puts the well-being and home of a bird before his own personal hygiene.

Personally, I found it out of place with the film... like I said, when Radagast appeared and started doing his "thing" the first thing I thought of was Jar Jar... I didn't think it fit, and it detracted from my enjoyment of the film.

[JamesKurtovich]

Some good discussion going on in here. I actually really liked Radagast, but I agree about his appearance. Even an eccentric hermit gone batshit crazy wouldn't walk around covered in feces. But it's Middle-Earth, so who knows.

It was definitely important to make Radagast unique, lest he just be "weaker Gandalf."

[Mahatma]

I feel that what is being read into Tolkiens work might be misconstrued since he stated that the Hobbit is infact a childrens tale-for all ages I think.And as for LotR,I remember he stated something in the preface like 'he didn't have much respect for the critics of his work since the books that apealed to them,didn't apeal to him'.His books are great,but as he himself said:he didn't write them as allegory.Take the books-and movies-for what they are.

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by ashedmaniac

Thank you. I can understand that and it makes sense within the content of the individual film (and is the type of "valid point" I've been praising people here for being able to make without necessarily connecting it to adaptation-related notions or other such things). I apologize for seeming perhaps "difficult" to some people here in my questions or in wishing to - personally, although I enjoy the conversations otherwise regardless - view the film on its own (and not through its relation to the source material or a new format or the like).

I am genuinely trying (some might argue "struggling") to understand differing perspectives like this because I like to see all sorts of sides or interpretations - but I know that sometimes my mumbling, stating seemingly rhetorical questions...or questioning something that others view as "obvious"...can appear like I'm attempting to dismiss a claim or be rude outright which generally isn't the case (In such instances, I'm often simply trying to work out the way I currently perceive something so the other party can understand where I'm coming from and better address my concern.). So apologies for any confusion that may cause and thanks, threefiftyrocket.

Nah, everyone is entitled to their opinion, if you enjoyed the character than more power to you. He just took away from my personal enjoyment of the film, mostly because I never saw Radagast as "batshit crazy" as one may put it. More of being wise like Gandalf, but preferring the solitary lifestyle and enjoying more the company of animals over the company of men, or, uh, Hobbits

But I feel like Boyens and Walsh to a page from Lucas and said hey, lets throw something in here that will really annoy the birdshit out of people... and if it doesn't they'll love it.

[Ernest Rister]

Again, I think they are producing these with the idea someone in the future will watch all six films in order, and so as a red herring to the treachery of Saruman, to make Saruman's resistance to defeating the Necromancer more plausible (because Saruman wants the Ring, and knows the Ring will find a way to present itself once Sauron's strength has returned), they present Radagast as a goofball.

As to your point about walking around with bird poop on your face, the Istari aren't immortal, they are susceptible to physical and biological harm, similar to pretty much everyone else on Middle Earth. Doth not a wizard bleed? They do. Stab them, will they die? Yup. Can they get sick? Probably.

Here's the deal and I can't believe I'm typing this when I should be sleeping off this flu...all this reminds me of a conversation I had about 20 years ago regarding animated films. Someone was complaining about the depictions of villains and heroines in animation, that villains are depicted as visually frightening as possible and heroines are impossibly visually beautiful. My response was that animated films are highly efficient narrative machines. Because of the expense of producing them, they try to sell their story points as quickly and as powerfully as they can, and because it is a drawn medium (now, a drawn and computer animated and stop motion medium), the freedom to express ideas lends the creative team to a form of visual hyperbole.

That's exactly what I think is going on with Radagast. Since the freedom of animation has now been granted to live-action filmmakers, they now can achieve the same results. It's visual story telling, and I get it. But even in animated films, someone is on hand to say, "No, you're going too far with that. Don't make that crone so terrifying, change that female from a DD cup to a C cup." So I know what they're doing with Radagast - making him look silly only to redeem him later and prove Saruman's opinion wrong - but...and this is just my own personal taste talking...Jackson hasn't shown the ability to dial things back. No one is telling him he's gone over the top. The bird poop on the face is visual hyperbole, it's too much, and at the end, it is unnecessary. More to the point, it's jolting. In effect, the scene ceases to be about the character and the story, because everyone is staring at the bird poop. Imagine staging - I don't know - Glengarry Glen Ross, and one of the actors went to the bathroom between scenes, and walks on stage with toilet paper stuck to his shoe. Everyone stops focusing on the story, and the scene suddenly becomes about the toilet paper. This is College Direction 101. Jackson has issues with taste and control. His imaginations and stagings are brilliant, but when he swings and misses, you want to duck because he's gone so large, you're afraid the bat is going to sail out of his hands and smack someone in the stands.

And now to drink some orange juice and collapse on the bed...

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by ashedmaniac

I can't speak toward its authenticity as an adaptation (to me, that does not enter into a conversation about an alternate version - which must stand on its own)...but, for a character who lives alone aside from animals and appears completely self-sufficient in doing so, I don't particularly see why he'd care about the bird excrement (and I find the suggestion that someone who puts compassion for animals before social norms they don't actually even have to deal with the vast majority of the time as being "borderline mentally deficient" to be rather insulting). And I'm wondering why other people are obsessing about it....

I'm getting the impression that people think it's something there purely for comedic effect. Which I don't grasp because it appears to me as a character trait (thus, at least not "merely" an attempt to make fourteen-year-olds laugh) that he puts the well-being and home of a bird before his own personal hygiene.

I completely agree. I can see why people might not like it (though I do think some use as their go-to fault for the film a bit too often) but I honestly don't think it was there for a cheap laugh. I saw it exactly the same as you - as a character trait. It showed a complete lack of vanity, someone who has completely immersed himself in the natural world. I can buy that he'd allow birds to live under his hat as a mark of this. The poop is the result of this. Why would he care? He's a hermit who adores nature. The whole thing makes sense to me.

I found Radagast to be a sweet, wonderful character, if occasionally overplayed by McCoy. The scene with the hedgehog could so easily have gone wrong but I thought it was the perfect example of his character - caring so much for a single hedgehog's life. I look forward to seeing more of him, especially moments where we see his power to its full.

With regards to the Jar-Jar comparison (which, it should be obvious, I don't agree with - I think that's just a go-to term for fandom for distracting silly characters, I don't buy that Radagast is anywhere near the level of awfulness that Binks was. Each to their own though) I think their is one significant difference - at least people acknowledge that Radagast is odd. Apart from Saruman's "he is a foolish fellow" comment there are some wonderful (but subtle) reaction shots from the dwarves and Bilbo for some of his oddest moments, such as the stick insect. It's obvious that you're supposed to find this fellow odd. Hopefully it's all setting it up to be a surprise when he shows his full power to confound expectations.

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Again, I think they are producing these with the idea someone in the future will watch all six films in order, and so as a red herring to the treachery of Saruman, to make Saruman's resistance to defeating the Necromancer more plausible (because Saruman wants the Ring, and knows the Ring will find a way to present itself once Sauron's strength has returned), they present Radagast as a goofball.

As to your point about walking around with bird poop on your face, the Istari aren't immortal, they are susceptible to physical and biological harm, similar to pretty much everyone else on Middle Earth. Doth not a wizard bleed? They do. Stab them, will they die? Yup. Can they get sick? Probably.

Here's the deal and I can't believe I'm typing this when I should be sleeping off this flu...all this reminds me of a conversation I had about 20 years ago regarding animated films. Someone was complaining about the depictions of villains and heroines in animation, that villains are depicted as visually frightening as possible and heroines are impossibly visually beautiful. My response was that animated films are highly efficient narrative machines. Because of the expense of producing them, they try to sell their story points as quickly and as powerfully as they can, and because it is a drawn medium (now, a drawn and computer animated and stop motion medium), the freedom to express ideas lends the creative team to a form of visual hyperbole.

That's exactly what I think is going on with Radagast. Since the freedom of animation has now been granted to live-action filmmakers, they now can achieve the same results. It's visual story telling, and I get it. But even in animated films, someone is on hand to say, "No, you're going too far with that. Don't make that crone so terrifying, change that female from a DD cup to a C cup." So I know what they're doing with Radagast - making him look silly only to redeem him later and prove Saruman's opinion wrong - but...and this is just my own personal taste talking...Jackson hasn't shown the ability to dial things back. No one is telling him he's gone over the top. The bird poop on the face is visual hyperbole, it's too much, and at the end, it is unnecessary. More to the point, it's jolting. In effect, the scene ceases to be about the character and the story, because everyone is staring at the bird poop. Imagine staging - I don't know - Glengarry Glen Ross, and one of the actors went to the bathroom between scenes, and walks on stage with toilet paper stuck to his shoe. Everyone stops focusing on the story, and the scene suddenly becomes about the toilet paper. This is College Direction 101. Jackson has issues with taste and control. His imaginations and stagings are brilliant, but when he swings and misses, you want to duck because he's gone so large, you're afraid the bat is going to sail out of his hands and smack someone in the stands.

And now to drink some orange juice and collapse on the bed...

I understand, and I understand what they may have been trying to do. I, personally, feel it didn't work. It detracted from the film in my opinion. I feel it could have been just as effective if they had portrayed Radagast in a more sane fashion... hope you sleep well my friend.

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by ashedmaniac

Now this sounds more like the type of, "But in the books..."-type stuff that, while I recognize its validity, doesn't enter into how I like to view media (I like things to have a firm sense of self-containment per entry...I like films to stand up as films rather than books - first and foremost...etc.). But your point about him being...almost distracting or maybe his "offbeat" nature pulling people from the film stands as a workable critique regardless (of any connection to any other films).



In such an instance (where it has become a notable distraction), if one has quality actors, one of them's probably going to find a way to play off of it and use it to engross the audience further in the production (for that play - within a few minutes - probably while verbally trashing the person with the toilet paper on their shoe...eventually reaching down, pulling it off, crumpling it up and throwing it in the trash like where the character's similarly "crap" career is headed...suddenly the toilet paper accident embodies or reinforces all of the symbolism that is right about the play and it message).

Presumably, this is what you're thinking is going on with Radagast (they're filling the screen with "crap" now to later - or even currently in what you say of Saruman - play off of it)? But you still don't like it now and may never like it because you don't understand why (or don't like how) such a "cheap" tactic was used in the first place?

What's everyone here got against crap that I'm unaware of? Do people here not use the restroom? ()

I didn't mean to say I don't like revisionism when we are adapting. Like I said earlier. I loved the portrayal of Ori, and that was nowhere in the book. So I didn't mean to say "He changed it, I don't like it" kinda thing. My main issue is that to me, the character was a distraction, a very bad one. I felt as if he was thrust into the story as comic relief in a story that did not need that kind of relief. The focus of the story was Bilbo's adventure with the Dwarves, beginning their trek to Erebor where they get a little sidetracked, Bilbo finds the ring, they get to Rivendell, etc etc... Then BOOM here comes the crazy old geezer with poop on his face riding his rabbit sled...

To me, it is as distracting as Jar Jar, but that is my opinion. If someone doesn't have a problem with the character, that's just personal taste and preference. If you enjoyed his presence in the film, then right on man

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by ashedmaniac

I'm one of those, "A book is a book. A film is a film. Why are we comparing the two?"-type people

I am too, the people who constantly use the rhetoric "The book was better" or "The book is always better" usually annoy me. Mostly, because its those same people who usually refer to television or film as "movies" and only see them as entertainment, and would never refer to them as art. I see them as two separate entities, and in this instance, only in this instance, do I really slip into that argument b/c of my universal love for these stories.

I may also slip into that argument as a means to defend my opinion from personal attack (which I believe I should not have to do). I try to respect others opinions as I think everyones should be respected even if they differ from your own, or if they are monumentally stupid (j/k, j/k, see what I did there?)

Anyway, back on topic, I do love this film for what it is, as I did with Lord of the Rings, I just think some of the choices they made, some of the literary freedoms that those chose to take, did not work for the films, or me. But I also understand that these films were not made "for me"

Props to Andy Serkis though, that dude is BADASS