Radagast and Rabbits: Why we should all just calm down


Pretty much everybody that cares about the upcoming Hobbit films must have heard by now about the 10-minute preview of footage from the first movie that Peter Jackson revealed at CinemaCon 2012. And even more people have probably heard of the mixed (mostly-negative might be more honest) that the preview got from industry experts and Tolkien fans alike (read this article for a quick sample of movie experts' reactions and scroll to the bottom of this article for a sample of the divided opinions coming from Tolkien enthusiasts). In fact, the negative reactions were strong enough that Peter Jackson himself wrote up a response several days later (relayed to us by the ever-vigilant DarkJackal).

But the truth is, I don't understand what everyone is so worked up about. Read on past the break to see why I don't think anything we've learned from this preview is that big a deal.

Most regular folks didn't get a change to see the footage, so theonering.net was kind enough to send their host Quickbeam out to Vegas to watch the preview and then relay it to the rest of us. He wrote up a great summary of everything he saw, which you can read here.

Now, I'll be the first to admit I'm not the most tech-savvy guy out there when it comes to movies and film . . . so the whole bruhahah about the 48 frames-per-second is a little beyond me. Frankly, I just want to see the movie . . . I'm not too concerned about whether it's in 2D or 3D or anything else. However, the controversy over the fidelity of the films to Tolkien's original work (and to a much lesser extent, the continuity between the new films to the previous LOTR films) is of interest/concern to me. And it's that question of fidelity to the story and world that Tolkien created that has a lot of fans up in arms at the moment.

Just what are they so angry about? After perusing the web for a bit, it seems like lovers of the Hobbit and LOTR books are angry about two things revealed in the footage preview:

  1. A scene where Gandalf finds nine tombs that the Ringwraiths were supposedly sealed into by the Dunedain of the North (Aragorn's folk, if you're wondering); when our trusty wizard finds the tombs they've been broken open and their "spells of binding" have been broken
  2. Radagast . . . yeah, pretty much everything about the Brown Wizard's debut has people up in arms
In general, I'm a Tolkien purist . . . I think that the movies should stick as close to the books as possible. There were plenty of things in the LOTR films that I wish had been done differently (Faramir, Denethor and the battle of the Pelennor Fields, just to name a few). But I have to admit, I feel like all the ruckus being made about this preview has gone too far. Here's why:

Tombs and Binding Spells: The Ringwraiths

The Nazgul, by Lode Claes
Here's Quickbeam's description of two scenes: first, a meeting of the White Council, and second, the moment when Gandalf finds the Ringwraith's empty tombs:
This showed Sir Christopher Lee in front of greenscreen, looking at the table where Gandalf has just placed a Morgul blade.  Urgent discussion ensues about the nature of the weapon, and a luminous Cate Blanchett gets the lion’s share of the expository dialogue.  She explains how the Men of the North once battled against the Witch-King of Angmar, and succeeded in burying him in a spell-protected crypt, “so dark and deeply buried it would never see light again.”  Gandalf raises his eyebrows as if to say, “It’s right here, so never say never.”  Hugo Weaving provides the deep-voiced “But that’s impossible!” incredulity of the scene while the faintest flicker of wickedness passes across Saruman’s face. 
Cut to the prison-crypt, where Gandalf is investigating in the dark, using only his staff as a light source, and then BAM! there’s Radagast right behind him. . . As Gandalf whips around to see who is sneaking up on him, he exhales rather irritated, “Oh, it’s you,” followed by Radagast’s frightened admission that the crypt they’re standing in “is not a nice place to meet.”  He also has a glowing crystal piece in his staff, and leaning over the vertical shaft, they both look down over the edge, as Gandalf counts a total of nine tombs, all with their spells broken and bars ripped. 

The Witch-King, Alan Lee
On the surface, this sequence of events looks like pure extrapolation on the part of Peter Jackson & Co. Does this happen in any of the books? No. Does it happen in any of the appendices? Nope. In fact, Tolkien's own writing suggests that the Ringwraiths spent the duration of The Hobbit far, far away in Minas Morgul on the borders of Morder (read here for a nice summary).

But if we look a little closer, we find that the scenes depicting the White Council discussing the Ringwraiths, and Gandalf and Radagast finding the empty tombs aren't so much pure invention, as they are an amalgamation of many different ideas that Peter Jackson pulled from scattered areas of Tolkien's work. For example, we know that the White Council met several times to discuss the growing evil of Dol Guldur and what they should do about it . . . and that at first they feared a Nazgûl had taken up residence in Dol Guldur. So the idea that the White Council would be discussing the Nine isn't at all far-fetched.

And the scene with the tombs? Well, there is the issue that the Ringwraiths never actually died (remember, Rings of Power simply prolong the existence of their owners), they're kind of just stuck in limbo, so tombs seem a bit premature. Plus, Tolkien explicitly detailed the final battles between the Men of the North and the Witch King of Angmar, and there is never any mention of tombs or binding spells.

On the other hand, the hobbits in LOTR encounter barrow-wights, and Aragorn recruits the King of Dead and his armies to fight for Gondor, so clearly Tolkien was comfortable with the idea of haunted tombs and ghosts. And when Tomb Bombadil drives the barrow-wight from it's tomb, the whole barrow actually collapses, so the Ringwraiths physically breaking out of their tombs isn't entirely un-Tolkien either. And it turns out that binding spells aren't that strange either (at least from a Middle-earth point of view).
Gimli took his arm and helped him down to a seat on the step. "What happened away up there at the door? he asked. "Did you meet the beater of the drums?"
"I do not know," answered Gandalf. "But I found myself suddenly faced by something that I have not met before. I could think of nothing to do but try and put a shutting-spell on the door."
––Fellowship of the Ring; Part 2; Chapter 5: The Bridge of Khazad-dûm

Now I know somebody is going to argue that a "shutting-spell" is not a "binding-spell" . . . but come on . . . they basically mean the same thing: keep something closed or immovable.

It all boils down to this: even though there are some complete story-line fabrications involved with the Ringwraiths and the tombs, the basic concepts borrow from a number of legitimate Tolkien ideas. And I might even add that none of these scenes are critical to the development of the protagonist's (that's Bilbo, in case you forgot) story. We all went into this knowing two movies were going to be made from a single book . . . why are we surprised that some new things had to be thrown in?

Radagast the Brown


Radagast's Cunning, Lucas Graciano

More than anything else, it seems like Radagast's portrayal in the preview has gotten under people's skin, and frankly, I'm at a loss to explain why. Just in case the entire world has forgotten, the title of the book and the movies is The Hobbit. Not The Wizards, not The Istari, and not Gandalf's Pal Radagast the Brown. I mean, this wizard is perhaps the most minor of the  minor characters in all of Middle-earth (I believe he gets a total of five mentions in The Hobbit and LOTR combined) but from the major stink people are raising, you'd think he's the most important character of all, as if both Bilbo and Frodo would have failed at their respective quests and met horrible and untimely deaths had Radagast not been there to save them. In reality, Radagast doesn't really do anything . . . oh except play the unwitting pawn in Saruman's scheme to capture Gandalf (not Radagast's finest moment).

Here is Quickbeam's description of Radagast's big reveal in the preview:
Radagast?  Oh let me tell you, he’s got so much going on!  He is wearing a funnily-shaped hat with dominant brown and black hues, underneath which is revealed a bird’s nest with hatchlings making a mess all in his hair and beard!  McCoy brings a disarming, childlike quality to the character. . . 
I’m not remembering these clips in the correct order they were shown, but we also see a brief shot of Radagast being pulled along the forest floor in a sled drawn by mighty grey jackrabbits!  I kid you not, it was a ramshackle version of an Iditarod dogsled, made of twisted branches and bracken, pulled by six or seven oversized rabbits.  I think it was Radagast, but he went by so fast — what other character could it be?  And this point the filmmakers are making a complete departure from Tolkien but it honestly doesn’t bother me.
 As with the Ringwraiths, movie Radagast seems to pretty much be an invention of WETA and Peter Jackson, and it has a lot of fans riled up. But who really cares? Radagast is NOT a pivotal character. Can I stress that enough? Besides, since Tolkien barely gave any descriptions of the guy (except that he's "The Brown") who's to say that one imagining of Radagast is more correct than the other?

Some people are complaining that a Radagast with birds "making a mess all in his hair and beard" is somehow trampling on Tolkien or tarnishing the good name of LOTR. Or that giant rabbits is too ridiculous for the Hobbit. Really? I think that Quickbeam makes a good point when he points out that movie Radagast isn't any more whimsical than bipedal dogs serving dinner to Bilbo and the dwarves at Beorn's house. And it's definitely not any more outlandish than a talking purse (which sounds the alarm on Bilbo when he tries to "burgle" the trolls).

Just to show you the tiny amount of material Mr. Jackson & Co. had to work with, I'll list the defining quotes dealing with Radagast:
"I am a wizard," continued Gandalf. "I have heard of you, if you have not heard of me; but perhaps you have heard of my good cousin Radagast who lives near the Southern borders of Mirkwood?"
"Yes; not a bad fellow as wizards go, I believe. I used to see him now and again," said Beorn.
––The Hobbit; Ch. 7: Queer Lodgings
"I turned then east and north and journeyed along the Greenway; and not far from Bree I came upon a traveller sitting on a bank beside the road with his grazing horse beside him. It was Radagast the Brown, who at on time dwelt at Rhosgobel, near the borders of Mirkwood. He is one of my order, but I had not seen him for many a year."
"Gandalf!" he cried. "I was seeking you. But I am a stranger in these parts. All I knew was that you might be found in a wild region with the uncouth name of Shire."
"Your information was correct," I said. "But do not put it that way, if you meet any of the inhabitants. You are near the borders of the Shire now. And what do you want with me? It must be pressing. You were never a traveller, unless at great need."
"I have an urgent errand," he said. "My news is evil." Then he looked about him, as if the hedges might have ears. "Nazgûl," he whispered. "The Nine are abroad again. They have crossed the River secretly and are moving westward. They have taken the guise of riders in black."
––The Fellowship of the Ring, Part II; Ch. 2: The Council of Elrond
"The Nine have come forth again," I answered. "They have crossed the River. So Radagast said to me."
"Radagast the Brown!" laughed Saruman, and he no longer concealed his scorn. "Radagast the Bird-tamer! Radagast the Simple! Radagast the Fool! Yet he had just the wit  to play the part that I set him."
––The Fellowship of the Ring, Part II; Ch. 2: The Council of Elrond
 Indeed, of all the Istari, [Gandalf] only remained faithful, and he was the last-comer. For Radagast, the fourth, became enamoured of the many beasts and birds that dwelt in Middle-earth, and forsook Elves and Men, and spent his days among the wild creatures. Thus he got his name (which is in the tongue of Numenor of old, and signifies, it is said, "tender of beasts").
––The Unfinished Tales of Middle-earth and Numenor; II: The Istari

Radagast the Brown, by travsthebean
 What do we learn from all these quotes? Radagast was on friendly terms with Beorn (which reenforces his association with birds and beasts). Unlike Gandalf (and even Saruman early on), Radagast had never travelled extensively. Saruman, at least, thought Radagast a fool . . . and no matter how proud the White Wizard had become, there is at least some truth to his opinion, since unlike Gandalf, Radagast wasn't able to perceive Saruman's wicked intent. And last but not least, Tolkien himself stated that Radagast hadn't remained faithful to his original calling.

All of this taken together suggest to me that portraying Radagast as a slightly silly and sort of bumbling wizard who seems a little like a fish out of water when dealing with Gandalf and the Gray Wizard's more serious pursuits, is a perfectly valid interpretation. Definitely not the only way to envision Radagast . . . but a legitimate one nevertheless.

Conclusions

So that dragged on a bit. In the end, I guess I my main point is this: nothing that we learned from the 10 minute preview is pivotal to the main plot line of The Hobbit. The Ringwraiths and Radagast have almost nothing to do with Bilbo, so no matter how they're portrayed, the movie can still remain true to the true points of The Hobbit. And that's what's really important, right?

And one last thought . . . by making these movies, Peter Jackson is trying to please many different groups at once: the movie studio, fans of the LOTR movies and fans of the books. It should come as no surprise that he can't please all of them 100% of the time. The original three movies were great movies . . . sure, there are things I would have done different had I been calling the shots, but overall the films were fantastic. I figure Mr. Jackson deserves a bit of patience from the rest of us.

I'm excited to hear what the rest of you think. Let me know in the comments below!

62 comments:

  1. From a personal perspective, I'm still not sure about the ringwraiths being included in the film. I worry about it dragging the plot further away from the Hobbit characters than it needs to go. And that's really my only concern. Whether there is some basis for them to have been entombed or not doesn't bother me much in this instance. Just as long as they mention them and then get back to the main plot fast.

    Oh Radagast. I totally agree with your argument about him. I am not really thrilled with the portrait the spoilers paint of him, but I also think far too much attention is being paid to it. I suppose we might like to think all the Istari are dignified to some degree, but Saruman's scornful description implies otherwise.

    Now what I have not seen discussed is the conversation between Galadriel and Gandalf where he says something to the effect of the Hobbit gives him courage (sorry can't look it up right now). This is way more facinating for what it reveals about Gandalf's doubts and limitations. Does this strike you as consistent with the character (as Ian has played him), or is this too timid a comment for a wizard to make? I think it all depends how it's delivered (so I really am not worried). I tend to believe it rounds out Gandalf's character well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was actually really excited when I read Gandalf's comment about Bilbo . . . I think it's consistent w/movie Gandalf AND Tolkien even alludes to something along those lines. In The Unfinished Tales when Tolkien is describing the origins of the Istari, he says that when Manwe nominated Gandalf (Olorin) the wizard was uncertain at first, admitting that he was afraid of Sauron. So I think that comment is completely in line with what we know of Gandalf, both from the movies and from Tolkien's own writings.

      Delete
    2. Yes, when thinking of UT it sounds right. People keep saying how they can't include any Unfinished Tales stuff because they don't have the rights, but it seems apparent to me they are going to find ways to get those concepts into the movie somehow.
      Although I almost feel Gandalf is speaking to the audience with a line like this, as in "Listen close. This nervy little hobbit is your hero, even more than I am. Deal with it."

      Delete
    3. Spot on . . . I think Mr. Jackson does a better job of honoring Tolkien's work than a lot of people are willing to give him credit for.

      Delete
    4. Just saw the movie. The Radagast parts were my favorite. Long story short, Tolkien wrote so little about Radagast, it gave Jackson the freedom to interpret, and he used it well. Literally my favorite line of the movie was "These are RHOSGOBEL RABBITS. Let's see them try!" (Radagast then rides a rabbit-driven Father Christmas sleigh-type thing and totally outpaces the Wargs. I am positive the Orcs felt Cave-Trolled, like Radagast was playing Pikachu in Super Smash Brothers and spammed Lightning Bolt, hitting them offscreen every time. It was pure awesome. This is mostly what this reviewer already told you, so it's not a spoiler, except I'm adding "It WORKED and was EPIC."

      For people concerned about the development of the characters: Fear not- though a bit of artistic license is taken (just as was with the Trilogy I might add), Thorin Oakenshield and Bilbo Baggins are developed as well as Aragorn and Frodo (the King and the Hobbit) before them. Bilbo a bit better than Frodo, actually.

      It feels exactly as it is supposed to- it definitely has both Epic Middle-Earth Scenes, and Morality Play Fairy Tale Children's Storybook Sweet Endearing Hearthy Homey moments. I couldn't have asked for better. Watch it, and love it. (There's even a wonderful line from Gandalf near the beginning- "all good Tales deserve embellishment" which is totally true and applies to the movie. I never felt anything was detracting from my experience.

      Bilbo and Thorin both get to be More Awesome than they were in the Book, and that's Totally Fair in my mind. You wouldn't believe how how awesome they make the Dwarves. Bombur, Thorin, Balin, Fili, Kili were admittedly the easiest (predictably) to keep track of because one's the Fat One, one's the King, one had a major post-mortem cameo in LOTR, and Fili and Kili are the young elfish looking Dwarves. And the rest are Dwarves. But hey, 5 out of 13 being well-fleshed out characters isn't bad, and we have time for Dwalin Bifur Bofur Dori Ori Nori Oin and Gloin to get more attention in two movies. You can bet Gloin will at least, and maybe Dwalin, Bifur and Bofur. Honestly if every Dwarf gets a Scene to Be Awesome In, that will be Impressive to say the LEAST, even with Three Movies. It was cramped giving 9 Fellowship heroes big roles across 3 movies. Add 4 to that, plus Supporting Cast, and I am shocked and amazed (but not necessarily surprised, since being shocked and amazed is what I've come to expect from Middle-Earth :D)

      Delete
    5. I completely agree with you . . . Radagast was so much better than I was expecting. Funny, and yet consistent (somehow) with everything that the movie Middle-earth has become. He cracked me up. And yeah, Thorin and Balin were great. Balin did a really good job of being the cautious voice of the group, tugging them back to reality at times. All in all, the movie was everything I hoped, and a little more. For you, how does it stack up against the LOTR films? As good as? Better? Worse?

      Delete
    6. On the contrary I found Radagast parts very childish and acting like some 8th grader. Stupid Harry Potter-like humor. The sled with rabbits really ruined the character and you have to block it from your head so it won't ruin the film altogether. Stupid inclusion of childish element in the movie.

      Delete
    7. Elaintahra>>I have to disagree with you. I can totally see how Radagast would seem very odd if you were expecting/hoping that AUJ would be in the exact same vein as the LOTR films. But have you read the book? There are a lot of childish elements in the book, including a talking purse. I felt like the Radagast scenes were in perfect keeping with the tone and feel of the book, which really pleases me, since The Hobbit was a children's novel, unlike the LOTR trilogy.

      Delete
    8. Have to agree with Landon here, the Hobbit is a kids book and has a much different feel to the lord of the rings. I think they did a fairly good job balancing between the whimsical scenes that feel like the hobbit book and the more epic scenes that invoke the feelings of the lord of the rings movies.

      Radagast was amusing and well played, somehow appearing to be both childlike and wise at the same time.

      Delete
    9. The Radagast scenes were a travesty. You can fanboi up and defend them, but he's the modern version of Jar Jar Binks. Yuck, and yuck.

      Delete
    10. Radagast was a complete disaster in everyday, every sence he was in was made worse by his presence, his dialog was terrible, he was a total moron, his rabbit sled was so over the top and ridiculous. And to top it off for some absurd reason Jackson though having one of the 5 wizards would look good with bird crap streaming down his face, terrible.

      The whole movie was so over the top, LoTR was firmly grounded in reality except for a couple Legolas scenes and some comedy relief from Gimli the movies always felt like this is something that could happen, there are real people in fantastical situations, real people that are fighting and dying.

      The Hobbit on the other hand has a ton of bad comedy relief(hardly anyone laughed) and most of the action scenes are completely over the top and absurd, the whole escaping from the goblins action scene was ludicrous and completely unbelievable. And the the death of the Goblin king was particularity bad, as Jackson for some bizarre reason decided that was a good time to throw in a corny one-liner by The Goblin King himself. The movie was not all bad the Bilbo/Gollum scene was excellent for example but overall not very good. I hope if they ever make more Tolkien stuff, like say the Children of Hurin that drop Peter Jackson.

      Delete
    11. Ok . . . just a few thoughts here in response to the Radagast haters:
      1) your opinion is your own and that's cool with me, but that doesn't make other opinions wrong
      2) since nothing about movie Radagast directly contradicts anything Tolkien ever told us about the Wizard, you can't really claim that's not what Tolkien had in mind or that the movie portrayal is "not right", since, quite frankly, you have no idea what the author was really thinking
      3) The only way you could justify calling Radagast a "total moron" is by ignoring the fact that he PURPOSEFULLY AVOIDS SOCIETY; of course he's going to seem eccentric and odd . . . his only friends are animals, for pity's sake!
      4) I'm not really sure what you mean by "LOTR was firmly grounded in reality" since its clearly not. Fantasy stories are called "fantasy" because they are firmly grounded in fantastical places, situations and characters that DO NOT EXIST in the real world. Now, if you mean the LOTR movies are more serious in tone than the Hobbit movie, I will concede you the point. In fact, I'm glad that the LOTR films are more serious than the Hobbit movie. Why? BECAUSE THATS THE WAY IT IS IN THE BOOKS TOO! Sheesh. Go back and read the Hobbit before you start complaining about comedy, light tones and silliness. Be sure and pay attention to the part where Bilbo tries to steal one of the troll's purses and the purse starts talking. Bet you would have been angry if PJ had thrown that part in too. If you read my review, you'll see that frankly, I wish the movie had been even lighter in tone.
      5) There is one point that we agree on . . . the Goblin King's one liner right before he dies is terrible. Just terrible.
      6) It's spelled "fanboy" not "fanboi"

      Delete
  2. The thing that concerns me about Radagast is not so much how he's portrayed - sounds like they got him spot on, in fact - but in how he's going to be playing ' a fat more expanded role', to loosely quote the Wikipedia article. As you said, he's got 5 mentions in the ENTIRETY of tolkiens work...now he's a major character in the hobbit movie(s)?

    Also, heard a Rumour that it's three movies now, instead of two!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And it's no longer a rumor! PJ has officially confirmed that there will be three films . . . still don't know how I feel about that.

      As to Radagast, I agree with you . . . I'm not sure how I feel about him suddenly becoming a major character. Thankfully, there hasn't been any indication yet that he'll be included in the White Council, so maybe we're all just jumping to conclusions about how much screen time he'll end up getting.

      Delete
  3. Who rides a sleigh through a forest...

    Also...

    "I turned then east and north and journeyed along the Greenway; and not far from Bree I came upon a traveller sitting on a bank beside the road with his GRAZING HORSE beside him. It was Radagast the Brown, who at on time dwelt at Rhosgobel, near the borders of Mirkwood. He is one of my order, but I had not seen him for many a year."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, I see what you're saying. I wonder if the whole rabbit thing was an attempt to give the films that child-like quality that the books have. And, not to be a stickler, but just because Radagast rode a horse once, doesn't mean that was ALL he ever road.

      Delete
    2. I agree, maybe it is, I just find it an odd choice.

      Delete
    3. I thought it was perfect! All in all it was a CHILD'S book!

      Delete
  4. Thanks SO much for actually looking at this with a modicum of good humour and calm. I've loved Tolkien's work for almost twenty years (I even wrote my dissertation about LOTR) and I've seen nothing objectionable thus far. People huffing and puffing about the fairy tale or childish aspects should recall that The Hobbit was clearly a book intended for children (I was about ten when I first read it). Similarly, I cannot get my head around people wailing about the additional sequences put in. When he penned The Hobbit in 1937, Tolkien hadn't developed the entire world as yet. You can even see retcon moments in LOTR (the explaining away of Sauron being the Necromancer, the slightly awkward explanation of the phrase 'never heard of the king' etc) where Tolkien almost recants bits from The Hobbit. I'm really excited to see a version of events which tells The Hobbit story from the perspective of knowing exactly what else happens. And if there are sequences which didn't appear in the original canon... oh well. That doesn't automatically make them inconsistent with Tolkien's world. Let's not forget that Tolkien himself could at times be inconsistent (the Axemen of Lossanarch are led by a spearman, Erkenbrand's Rohirrim turn up on foot at Helm's Deep etc). The LOTR films actually did certain sequences in a way which improved the story from a flowing narrative perspective. Perhaps extra scenes will do the same here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Matt>>Thanks for the comment! I couldn't agree with you more. I feel like their are some fans who love the books so much (and goodness knows there are plenty of reasons too) that they are kind of blinded to the fact that: 1) Tolkien's ideas about his mythopeaia (sp?) were constantly evolving and 2) Any story no matter how good can be improved on, even if it's just in small ways. I'll be the first to admit that there are parts of the LOTR movies I would have done differently . . . but in a way that's a good thing. PJ managed to take a story I know too well and actually make me worry about the characters because at points I felt like I didn't know exactly what was going to happen.

      Delete
    2. Forget "inconsistent with Tolkien's world." Is the story likely to be better for the changes? Highly doubtful.

      Delete
  5. "We all went into this knowing two movies were going to be made from a single book . . . why are we surprised that some new things had to be thrown in?"

    Three movies now (from just one book, mind you)...but why should Jackson's desire to turn one story into three movies drive unnecessary plot changes to a literary classic? That the added material may be - however remotely - drawn from Tolkien's own ideas is immaterial. Even if it is good, why does it even need to be there? Does the source material need fleshing out? No. In many ways, The Hobbit is the most complete, stand-alone story of the lot. Is the writing insufficiently creative? Hardly. How much better than Shakespeare can screenwriters write Macbeth? Would it benefit from an hour more screen time for Fleance?

    The bottom line is, they are adding material that has no business being in a single movie, in order to turn the classic novel into a trilogy for purely commercial reasons. Many of us were disappointed that the "Scouring of the Shire" was cut to fit LOTR into one trilogy, and you're asking us to be thrilled they are adding several hours of stuff, written by Hollywood, that Tolkien never even imagined. I will reserve judgment, but I am less optimistic by the day, and while I spent a good deal on LOTR tickets, DVD's, and merchandise, I suspect that will not be the case this time around.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @INTJ>> Deep down I agree with you . . . the books (LOTR and TH) are better than the films can ever be. But at the same time, you're trying to compare apples to oranges. Literal translations of books into movies rarely work well . . . in fact, I can't think of a single example that has ever even been made. You just can't do it. So there are always going to be changes. Are the changes/additions/cuts in LOTR what I would have done had I been a director? No. Do they appeal to dyed-in-the-wool Tolkien fans? Generally not. Did they still make incredibly successful/popular/entertaining/at-times-even-moving films? You bet they did. And there are several box office records, hundreds of billions of dollars of profit and a stack of Oscar awards backing that assessment up.

      Delete
  6. I think the Ringwraith idea is going have to do with the idea of the 'Necromancer' (Sauron) which is a title for a power that can raise things from the dead. Dol Guilder after all is the 'hill of sorcery'. And I think Radagast would be incredibly important in the process of discovering and identifying the power of the Necromancer because his house of Rhosgobel is on the borders of Mirkwood and he communicates with all creatures. I totally accept what I've seen and heard about Jackson's interpretation of Radagast. I always thought of Radagast as the eccentric hermit of the Istari. Like Tom Bombadil or Treebeard, he's happiest in the living breathing company of middle-earth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At first I was wary of movie Radagast, but I'm pleased to admit that the more I see of him the more I really, really like him. Curse PJ . . . as usual he's drawing me in to his own interpretation of the books.

      Delete
  7. Here is my gripe with the portrayal of Radagast- Not only was he Istari, so a being of rather profound power, but chosen by the vala Yavanna- responsible for the creatures and the growing land. His interests and occupations always seemed to me important and rather underplayed- despite the idea that he had fallen from task (which is not apparent, considering who sent him). I had hoped that Saruman's arrogant scorn for Radagast would be contrasted by Radagast's humility and concern for other beings. Instead, he is presented as a buffoon with bird poop in his beard.

    I think my major issue with the Necromancer/wringwraiths is the timeline- where/when did Gandalf get the key/map/ring from Thrain if not in the dungeons of Dol Guldur, which they are just exploring in the movie?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You bring up some good points. While I really enjoyed Radagast in the movie, I did feel that some opportunities were missed to show other sides of a few characters. For example, I really think PJ missed an opportunity to show Sauruman as something more than a not-so-subtly-evil egomaniac. I mean, in the books Sauruman managed to fool the White Council for several centuries. But in the movie he is too blatantly snide, petty and conniving . . . just as he is in the LOTR films. So what we're left with is a Sauruman who apparently experiences now changes or growth for over 60 years.

      Delete
    2. See I didn't feel like Saruman was being snide, petty, or conniving at the White Council. I actually thought it was kinda neat how they used him to play devil's advocate / police chief to Gandalf's loose cannon cop. I actually had to remind myself later that, oh yeah, this is probably about the time he first started looking into the Palantir and communing with Sauron.

      "A knife ain't evidence! I can't authorize an arrest on this; the mayor will have my ass! This office has enough problems without getting into elf-on-dwarf street violence; why you wanna go and stir the pot? What's that? RADAGAST? Don't you mention that corrupt, mushroom-eatin motherfucker to ME! You know what your problem is, Gandalf? You're a loose cannon! I'm suspending you without pay! Turn in your badge and staff!"

      Delete
    3. Anonymous>>You know, after watching the film a second time, I agree with you. Sauruman doesn't bug me as much.

      Delete
    4. his comment about the timeline is more interesting as well.. I found the same problem. the Dol Guldur timeline is messed up.. Gandalf barley escaped from dol guldur with the map and key after he found thrain and was investigating there.. so he knows all about dol guldur before the quest even starts.. so how is radaghast just makin news with it and showin up to Gandalf with a morgul blade all shroomed up and wantin some of ol'Gandie's feel good sweet-smoke before he can even sputter out what Gandalf should already presumably know.. just doesn't work for me.. if im to believe this timeline then Ol'Gandie has been sneakin around Dol Guldur for some time and not telling anyone.. and when radaghast comes to him he just acts like he don't know anything.. very shady tooms,, very shady...

      Delete
  8. My objection is not the fleshing out of a minor character. My objection is that he has a sled pulled by rabbits.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You know, the rabbits didn't bother me as much as I thought they would. I thought they were fun.

      Delete
    2. Flemish Giant rabbits have been around for centuries. The Norse saw a rabbit in the moon, not a man in the moon. The diminishing of the goddess Oester and her rabbit dominion has been subjected and reduced to fluffy ridicule as have the elves.

      Delete
    3. Today, that is. I enjoyed seeing the rabbits take their rightful place in this mythology.

      Delete
  9. After seeing the movie, I thoroughly enjoyed Radagast. I was rather fond of this Wizard who wasn't the slick Gandalf type or the conniving old crow Sauruman type. And I thought the rabbit sled was a lot of fun from the regular horse method.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes and yes. Its nice to see that there aren't just two types of wizards.

      Delete
  10. Radagast the brown is so ridiculous. The movie was fun and the chill like the Hobbit book was. Okay the sled with bunnies was awful but the final nail to coffin was the bird poo on the mans face. He was horrifying and it was kinda sad to see one character ruin otherwise very perfect movie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. thought that the idea of having birds build their home in radagast's hair supported the whole 'responsible for the creatures and the growing land' part. actually it further emphasizes it.

      Delete
  11. The rabbit sled was the best part of the entire movie.

    ReplyDelete
  12. i loved the rabbit sled

    ReplyDelete
  13. Interesting comments. Nice looking site! As a recreational musher, I was RoFlMaoIng all over my dog crates when I saw the bunny sled. Now I'm utterly amused by the whimsical nature of it all. I had to produce some verbiage on it, here... http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2013/01/03/67872-radagasts-racing-rhosgobel-rabbits-a-recreational-musher-looks-at-the-realities-of-bunny-sledding/

    ReplyDelete
  14. People are worried about rabbits and bird droppings when the goblin king had TESTICLES hanging from his chin?

    ReplyDelete
  15. This website is a gorgeous place to come for important information! Do you mind if I pingback a couple of of your entries on my blog?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Blog JustOneCoolBlog>>Sorry it's taken me so long to get around to responding to you . . . been out of town (and internet service). Glad you like the blog! Go ahead and spread around whatever you'd like. Thanks!

      Delete
  16. I went to see the hobbit two weeks ago, and when Radagast first shows up I agree it was a little off putting but to quot my sister (who was with me)
    "the seventh doctor playing bate for worgs on a rabbit drown sleigh Who cares that its not in the book!" I mean really can you get more awesome!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Radagast definitely takes some getting used to, but like you say . . . wants you've acclimated to the guy, he's awesome.

      Delete
  17. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  18. wait until you see the dragon talk then....its in the book.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He should talk . . . that's how it happens in the book

      Delete
  19. I sorta liked the 7th doctor in brown robes, bird poo flowing down his face and riding a sleigh pulled by rabbits. It's incredibly amusing.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Elves at helm's deep means the biggest point of LOTR was missed in the movies. the time of man has arrived.
    same with the hobbit. not just a kid's story, however child-like the narrative. shame PJ shame.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Have heard reports that 'The Battle Under the Trees' is depicted in TH. WTF??? that happened at the time Minas Tirith was being assaulted by Witch King. if this is true then it's killed the hobbit movie for me. obviously a cynical move for profit. Fail!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Can't let facts get in the way of a good profit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The biggest point of LOTR is that the "time of man has arrived"? Gotta disagree. I think there a several bigger, more fundamental points that LOTR drives home, you know, little things like the power of small, simple beings, the importance of hope, etc. But if you think a few elves ruined that, that's your opinion. :)

      Delete
  23. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Radagast should't have bird poop on his face, but I will make one comment in Radagast's favour: He was completely ignored in the 3 LOTR movies. I don't mind his improved coverage in the Hobbit movie, it helps to re-dress the balance. I didn't like the way the Hobbit was turned into a kind of action movie. The belching dwarves were unnecessary. I could mention other examples but I think everyone knows what they are already. If Tolkien were alive today do you really think he would have liked this movie?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fascinating question! Do I think Tolkien would have liked the movie? Hmmm . . . as with most people, I think Tolkien would have liked parts of it, and disliked other parts. The scenery and the music are amazing and I think he would agree with that. Characters like Bilbo and Gandalf and Elrond are nailed, and I think Tolkien would have appreciated the interpretations. However, I'm not sure he would have enjoyed some of the extra (read: gratuitous) action scenes and the level of violence. What do you think?

      Delete
  25. As someone who has held (and fed and sheltered) a rabbit that was over two feet long with a head the size of a cantaloupe, a large cantaloupe, I found the rabbit sled wonderful and a perfect fit. Rabbits are not silly and funny, they are kick-butt, and yes Radagast p'wning by saying "These are RHOSGOBEL rabbits!" is great for the rabbit community. I always liked Radagast even from the little I read about him as a minor character, and I think they made him into a strong tertiary character.
    As for the "bird doo on his head" somehow being "improper" or "Jar Jar Binks-like" (and I HATE Jar Jar with a passion), y'all have never seen people with parrots walking around with a dishcloth on their shoulder so the bird doesn't mess up their shirt? And you also must know that bird doo on your head is good luck in many cultures.

    I do agree that some of the action seemed over the top in the first movie; it was cool but not anywhere near my recollection of the book.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey! It's good to hear from somebody who has actually dealt with big rabbits. Fascinating stuff.

      Delete
  26. Portraying Radagast as a fool conflicts with the identity of the Istari. Counselers from Valar would not wander about with bird droppings on their head and the rabbit sled is ridiculous. The 1st Hobbit movie often has the feel of a cartoon episode largely because of efforts to insert whimsical fluff. Abusing the identity of obscure characters or creating villains such as White Orc undermine what makes the Book and Trilogy so great .

    ReplyDelete