It's just...

Subject: It's just...
Author: Neshomeh
Posted on: 2012-12-17 17:41:00 UTC

Like I said, he made me uncomfortable. Nothing objective about it; I just felt viscerally uneasy any time he was onscreen. Like watching someone poke sticks at the slow kid, or when someone who hasn't bathed in a week and reeks of booze comes up to you looking for change. The way they played him was just yucky to me. A yucky, one-note, drug-addled-hippie stereotype.

For something objectively off, this is something I'm surprised you didn't cover in the history part of your review: when do you think Radagast's scenes at Rhosgobel and Dol Guldur were meant to have taken place in the movie? The way they cut back and forth between them and the main storyline, I'd think those events were happening at the same time—but then, how long did it take him to get from Dol Guldur to Gandalf and the Dwarves? And if the Necromancer was barely stirring and Dol Guldur mostly unoccupied as the quest was on its way, where exactly did Gandalf find Thrain imprisoned, and by whom?

Or, suppose we were seeing Radagast however many (hundreds of?) years ago, as per canon. What prompted him to leave just in time to catch up with Gandalf on the road? Why now, and not earlier or later? And, like you said, why ever, with him being him?

I'd also like to know how he crossed the Anduin and the Misty Mountains with his rabbit-sledge in any event, but that's minor. He IS a wizard, I'm sure he figured something out. I'm just curious.

I don't think he really behaves like any wild animal or bird I've ever seen. If that were so, I would expect him to be more cautious and quiet, quick to react when startled (to either flee, freeze, or fight), but otherwise very much taking his time to assess things before/while acting—looking, listening, probably smelling and tasting, too. Animals tend to conserve their energy. I'd expect him to move with greater restraint and efficiency, and to talk a whole helluva lot less. Radagast withdrew from the problems of the world to tend to his creatures, so I'd expect him to be withdrawn, a bit vague, not really on the same page as other people, but still capable of getting a coherent thought across once he remembers he needs to use words.

And he doesn't need to be constantly covered in bird poop. Animals DO groom themselves, and they don't trap each other underneath hats, where it's tight and dark and they can't escape. Actual animal-lovers don't do that, either.

~Neshomeh, starting to feel like she, Phobos, and VM saw a different movie than everyone else.

Reply Return to messages

Jump to this post's position in the thread ↴

The Hobbit by Hellga on 2012-12-15 20:46:00 UTC Reply

I saw the movie at the midnight opening and the movie was great. I do have my nitpicks, of course (the long review is in my LJ) but I would rank it 9/10 as a movie and 5.5/10 as a Tolkien adaptation owing to a couple significant (at least, for me) changes.

Given that they do have Hot!Dwarves (I must say Movie!Thorin is very much worth of fangirling... and Richard Armitage would make a fine son of Feanor...), I figured that as soon as more people see the movie, the Hobbit section of FF.net will explode. It has actually already begun...

I am now off to remember the good old days and dive into the depths of FF.net and see if it is goodfic, badfic, or godawfulfic, or weirdfic. :)

I think this might cheer you guys up. by Lily Winterwood on 2012-12-18 01:44:00 UTC Reply

Picking apart the films is fine, but parodying it...
I've never laughed harder at 'Thorin Dreamboatshield' in my life.

ON, WAR MOOSE! TO GREAT VICTORY! by KittyNoodles on 2012-12-19 02:43:00 UTC Reply

That is all.

Also, I really need to see that movie now... (nm) by KittyNoodles on 2012-12-19 03:32:00 UTC Reply

*dies laughing and is dead* by Cassie on 2012-12-18 01:56:00 UTC Reply

This is wonderful. :D I will have very giggly dreams tonight. Full of DWARFLYNESS.

My opinions. (Very rambly and spoileriffic.) by Cassie on 2012-12-18 01:38:00 UTC Reply

Jut been to see the film myself, and I have to say, I loved it. Massive changes from the book, which I expected, but I find myself rather pleased with the way they expanded on it, for the most part.

The alterations I didn't like, mostly specific points:

-Thror's unexplained gold greed. I mean, my mind filled in the blank (Ring of Power) but my mum and sister, who have never looked at a Tolkien book in their lives, had no idea where it came from.

-Thranduil on a moose/elk/whatever? (My sister thought it was a reindeer.) For that matter, Thranduil coming all the way from Mirkwood just to watch the dwarves escape and then ride off again as soon as they shouted for help. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have risked being spotted by Smaug just to go look. It also made for a rather annoying excuse for angst and needless hostility towards Elves on Thorin's part, and possibly an excuse to cram in the "typical" Elf/Dwarf dislikes.

-The dwarves' manners. They were described in the book as calling for plenty of food, but the sense I always got was that they are supposed to be nobility of a sort, and they had manners enough to know how to eat without half the meal dribbling out of their mouths. I blame the portrayal of movie!Gimli for that - belching and spilling his ale. Very disappointed.

-Azog becoming the main antagonist. He is supposed to be DEAD.

-The Great Goblin was possibly the least pleasant image I could have imagined. Someone clearly decided to play around with alternate meanings of "great".

-No mention was given to how Bilbo worked out that the Ring was making him invisible.

But for the most part I find I very much enjoyed the way it was adapted. I was thrilled to see the backstory explaining why the quest was even taking place, especially Thorin earning his name of Oakenshield, and I liked the way the history led into the main story, particularly the exchange between older!Bilbo and Frodo that had so many callbacks to the opening of FotR.

The dwarves, for the most part, were far more rugged and shorter-bearded than I imagined when I read the book all those years ago - two-thirds of my lifetime ago, ye gods I feel old. XD However, I think I like these versions better, all except Bombur. I'm kinda disappointed that they made him look like such a joke compared to the others. I also like the way they don't have just a band of axe-wielders. They have excellent archers and slingers, hammer-wielders, and fine swordsmen. I've grown extremely fond of Fili and Kili - they definitely play their role as the youngest and liveliest of the group, even if their relationship to Thorin hasn't yet been made clear in the film. I rather hope it will be, it was one of the things I liked about those two - he's not just their leader and rightful king, he's their uncle.

Radagast... well, I was kind of thrown at first by the way he was portrayed, and I know there's been a big debate between others about him further down the thread, but I rather sort of came to like his portrayal. He's rather dotty, forgetful, and quite frankly a mess that people can and will poke fun at, but he has a wonderful kind of power when it comes to what he knows and loves. He's also extremely courageous. First, he walked into Dol Guldur - a known refuge of dark powers - and fought hand to hand with what is implied to be the Witch-King of Angmar or one of his servants, and RADAGAST was the one who won. Secondly, he came to warn Gandalf and then deliberately drew the pack of Warg-riding orcs off the dwarves, putting himself in danger to help his friend and cousin.

Rivendell was just as gorgeous as I remembered it, and I loved seeing more bits of it. I also have to opine that Elrond looks rather good on a horse. :P In fact, I like Elrond much more in this film than when he was being the overprotective dad in LotR. His role as Exposition Man in this film was well written, I think, with the moon-runes and his identification of the swords.

On that note, the meeting of the White Council was enjoyable; I was having to muffle the urge to cackle watching Saruman's attempts to downplay the seriousness of everything. Galadriel was nicely mystical as usual - standing in the background but prodding Gandalf on so he wouldn't just back down in front of Saruman. I look forwards to seeing how things pan out in the next films.

(Heading off on a random tangent here - it was rather nice to see how Elrond deferred a bit to everyone else, being as he is the most junior of the Council by several thousand years. Gandalf placed the Morgul-blade on the table, Elrond went to pick it up without even knowing what it was ("ooh, shiny"), and barely got warned off in time - I spotted him snatching his hand back. Random little moment, but it made me chuckle.)

With regards to the thunderstorm - I heard "Storm Giants", not "Stone Giants", whoever it was that heard it the other way.

The cave scene was quite touching - Bilbo had enough doubts to consider really going home without Thorin getting cranky about it, but his own acceptance of the fact that he's not cut out for adventure makes his eventual decision to stick with it all the better.

The dwarves' escape from the goblin halls fed my love of extended, inventive hand-to-hand combat scenes perfectly. Not much to say other than that I was inwardly cheering them on the whole way. :D

The Riddles In The Dark scene. OH MY VALAR. It was everything I could have hoped for with the exception of one or two omitted riddles. I very nearly squeed on seeing Gollum just as I remembered him from LotR, and the use of his split personality was brilliant. The final, dawning realisation of "...what has it got in its nasty little pocketses?" sent chills down my spine.

Bilbo's own escape from the tunnels was amazing. His struggle with his decision over whether or not to try to kill Gollum had me wibbling just a teensy bit, especially the moment where he chose not to and just leapt for freedom. His return to the group was less triumphant than I'd hoped, but his answer to Thorin's "Why did you come back?" made me melt. Because the dwarves haven't got a home any more, and he's going to help them get it back - it's such a hobbity, kind answer, it really shows the essential Bilbo-ishness.

The scene around the trees had me on the edge of my seat. Thorin's battle with Azog was rather nerve-wracking, and the most bewildering bit - his friends and relatives are struggling for their lives, but he forgets all about them just so he can go fight his mortal enemy. On the other hand, Bilbo's Tookishness in running to help, even if he didn't have a clue what he was doing, made me have to muffle the cheering. I'm a sucker for heroics.

On a similar note, I very nearly gnawed my nails off waiting for the eagles to arrive. Every time the tension wne t up a notch, I was thinking "surely it's time for them to show up? ...well, it's gotta be now, surely... any moment now... What the - THORIN IS AMOST DEAD WHERE ARE THE EAGLES PETER JACKSON GIVE ME THE DAMN EAGLES DWARVES ARE FALLING OFF THE CLIFF oh thank the Valar there they are".

And finally, the point where Thorin pretty much apologises to Bilbo left me practically skipping out of the cinema at midnight, and coming online as soon as I got home to spill all my excited thoughts at you guys so I can calm down enough to sleep.

So, here they are. I hope this isn't too much, but I wanted to share my opinions. It is, after all, a continuation of where the PPC first came from, and now, more than ten years later, the story - and the adventure - lives on.
My spoileriffic review by Huinesoron on 2012-12-17 13:54:00 UTC Reply

I quite liked it, myself.

First off, as a film: I described it at the time as a mix between The Hobbit and LotR - not quite epic fantasy, but a lot more than the children's book. A fair number of people here have said they disliked that - I disagree. I think it worked well - the light and the serious in the same story.

Particularly given the framing device - that this is Bilbo's version written specifically for Frodo (as opposed to 'My Diary - My Unexpected Journey - There And Back Again - And What Happened After' - that telling of a lightened-up-epic-adventure is pretty much what you'd expect. Frodo is turning 33 on the day Bilbo thinks of writing it - or in Mannish terms, 18 or so. A fairly lighthearted story with some blood-pumping action scenes is about what you'd give him to read at that age.

But I also thought it worked for the audience (of which there were... um, not much more than a dozen, for some reason). The pocket handkerchief probably caught my attention first on this front - we have Bilbo's childish demand to turn back because he's forgotten his (similar to the book), but instead of someone having a spare, Fili (I think) throws him - a bit of his coat he rips off. Which is realism but also funny.

I also liked the way they used the songs - while carefully cutting out things like 'Tra-la-la-lally'. It is a shame about Fifteen Birds In Five Fir Trees, though.

On the filmic aspects I didn't like: the Goblin King was not very nice to look at, and didn't really seem to fit with his people. He seemed like he was about to pull out a novel or something. I can see why they did it - in fact, I agree that it's a good way to go with the character - but... not and make him look like that. The Hobbit is not a film you make to play games with your audience.

... kind of the only thing, really.

Okay, the adaptation. First off, the main plot:

Yeah, they mangled it around a bit. Thorin arrives late to the Party, they're not even heading for Rivendell, Bilbo loses them earlier, the whole Five Fir Trees scene was scrambled. But... really, they're not significant changes. Most of them - even the minor ones, like the way the troll scene ended - are within the realm of 'Well, I remember that differently, Bilbo!'. That troll scene - they used Bilbo, not Gandalf, to play for time, and then Gandalf broke a rock. Well, you know, the whole thing where the sun SUDDENLY was up and turning people to stone never made sense to me. Sunrises don't do that. Whereas stalling until sunrise and then making a way for it to get in is pretty darn clever.

(And yeah, they cut out the giant talking eagles and the 'let's have cooked breakfast in the Eyrie' scene. Can you blame them?)

As for the specific characters: I admit I can only identify about half the dwarves (Thorin, Fili, Kili, Gloin because I was looking for him, Balin, probably Dori, Bombur of course, and... one I gather is Bofur? Although I didn't get his name at the time. The Cossack). On the other hand, in the book I can only do Thorin, Fili-and-Kili, Bombur, and Balin. So that's kind of a plus.

I liked Thorin. My main problem was the amount of time he seemed to spend lying on his back with half-lidded eyes, glowering at people. But I liked the Lost Prince vibe.

Gandalf... um. Ian McKellan's a fan, isn't he? I actually think he overacted a lot of the lines from the book (I am Gandalf, and Gandalf... hmmm... hmmm... means ME), which is exactly the sort of thing a long-term fan would do with lines they know (think of people declaiming 'To be or not to be' - that sort of thing). But when he wasn't overacting, I liked him.

And I adored Bilbo. To the people who say he was barely in it - well, he was barely in that part of the book, either. He pretty much tags along and gets picked up by dwarves. The only things he does after leaving Hobbiton are a) bungle the troll scene, b) alert Gandalf to the goblins, and c) the Gollum scene. So this version was a lot more pro-active. And very well acted, in my opinion.

Specific scenes: Riddles in the Dark was very good. I felt for Gollum, I really did, and again - it was more serious than the book, but less than LotR. The problem of how to make a hungry monster volunteer for a game of riddles was well handled - and made use of Smeagollum, rather than just putting him in for fun.

Five Fir Trees was very much scrambled, but... again, it worked. (I assume none of the dwarves were in a position to go and help - we saw that with a couple, but it could have done with highlighting for the others).

(And I like the Stone - not Storm, Hellga, I think you misheard - Giants. They were fun. ;))

Um, essentially, and unlike 'Faramir is evil! Sam turns back! Elves go to the Hornburg! Flaming Denethor!', none of the changes broke character. If Thorin had been faced with an archenemy, he totally would have gone murder-happy. The only character changed was Bilbo - but we watched him gain more confidence during the film than he did in the book, so it didn't bother me.

So: as an adaptation of the book plot, it throws it around a bit, but not badly enough to bother me. But there's another aspect: the history.

Oh stars they messed that up. A quick count:

-Thror's gold-fever: actually pretty canonical, but I saw someone mention it. He wore a Dwarven Ring of Power, guys. The Seven are canonically attested to not sway Dwarves to Sauron, but rather to turn them inwards and fill them with gold-lust. So yeah, he probably would have been. And, Neshomeh, I didn't get the 'Smaug showed up because' vibe - I guess that's an interpretation, though.

-Azog, Thror, Khazad-Dum and Nanduhirion: Oh dear. That was a royal mess. From 'Thror enters Moria alone and is killed by Azog, so Thrain, Nain, Thorin and Dain wage war and kill him (but are scared off from entering Moria by Durin's Bane) we get 'Thror is killed in battle by Azog, Thorin fails to kill him, he goes wandering across Eregion hunting dwarves'. Yeah, pretty sure the Rangers would have something to say about that. 'The Wargs have come west of the mountains' is a significant thing in LotR - not so the movie version, since they were happily wandering over there all the time.

I don't think they needed a running villain - but it's the same decision-making process as brought down Dawn Treader, when they decided they needed to turn the book into a quest for seven magic swords. And no, Orcs - even Orcs from Gundabad - shouldn't be running around in the daytime (though did anyone notice how fast night fell after Bilbo returned near the end?). So I disagree with this change - I think it was pretty pointless and stupid - but fortunately, it wasn't that big a change. It lead to angsty!Thorin, some pointless Wargs (and Rivendell Lancers, which are from a computer game), but not much else. So there's that, at least.

-Radagast: I have gone on at length as to why I like this Radagast. I won't even try to rehash it here.

-The White Council: Again, I have no problem with them meeting while Mithrandir was in Rivendell anyway. They met several times as it is. I think Saruman was well-written (and very scathing - but as mentioned in the Radagast post, he never got on with the Bird-Tamer), and I liked the Galadriel-Gandalf interaction. I'm assuming Apparating!Galadriel was for dramatic effect, not an indication that she can either teleport or trap Gandalf in an illusion. Not sure what they were forshadowing with that 'If you ever need me' line, but I'm sure we'll find out.

-The Witch-King: Oh... dear. Assuming that was him in Dol Guldur, I guess Radagast would be able to see him - like Glorfindel, he was in Valinor at the time of the Trees, so he should live in 'both the seen and unseen worlds' (even if being a demigod doesn't automatically give him that power). But. Er.

'After the fall of Angmar the men of wherever took the Witch-King's body and buried it deep underground, blah darkness, blah never find, BUT LOOK SWORD'.

... which part of No living man may hinder me did they miss? It's not like Tolkien was subtle about this, you know - Merry's attack specifically 'pierc[es] the sinew behind his mighty knee', not some ethereal wossname. The Morgul Lord isn't a ghost - he's essentially a terrifying invisible zombie. The one thing he isn't is dead.

The only way I can reconcile that is by assuming the unheard name of who buried him (yes, I missed it) was his own allies, and that's just what they said when captured. But I don't think so, somehow.

So, final tally: I liked it as a film, wasn't too bothered about the plot changes, and was squirming through several pieces of the introduced extra plot. But overall, I enjoyed it, will see the other two, and will hope they mess things up less, not more, next time.

hS
Actually saw it in reasonable time for once. (Spoilers) by doctorlit on 2012-12-17 03:42:00 UTC Reply

I loved this movie! I haven't read the Hobbit since freshman year of high school, so I'm sorry to all the hardcore Tolkien fans who didn't enjoy it as much. But I thoroughly enjoyed it.

I didn't find the serious and humor bits to be that disjointed. It's the result of blending the original Hobbit style with Middle-earth's main storyline, and I think it works. It shows that, even with all the strife happening throughout the ages, there were still simpler moments being enjoyed by the average denizens of Middle-earth. (Not that Thorin's company are exactly ordinary, BUT)

I LOVE RADIGAST. Based on other comments, it sounds like he was pretty different in the books, but holy crap, I love him. He's probably my favorite Tolkien canon now, and I don't think I even had one before I watched this movie. Being someone who likes animals more than people myself . . . I didn't find him that strange. <. and as odd he acted still showed off some impressive talent what with evading the wargs fighting witch-king holy crap that entire scene was just utterly terrifying so i think portrayed a plenty competent wizard.>
The scene between Bilbo and Gollum was awesome. I do dislike when they replace an entire character with CGI, but in Gollum's case, I don't mind it, since a living actor could never portray his wasted-away form properly.

The thing I am most sad about is that they cut out ♪these silly little birds, they have no wings; oh what shall we do with the silly little things?♪ I get that orcs haven't really been established as a race that sings at all, but that was still an awesome, awesome song. ;_;

I wasn't bothered by the rehashed music; I had expected it, actually, and it feels like a natural choice, since it takes place in the same world/story.

RADAGAST. by VixenMage on 2012-12-17 04:41:00 UTC Reply

And other crotchety, grumpy, "My only joys in life revolve around being mean on the internet" sentiments.

_{His rabbit-pulled sledge was cool though.}

More on Radagast . . . (still probably spoilers) by doctorlit on 2012-12-18 05:31:00 UTC Reply

Down below, you compare Radagast to a "drug-addled, hippie stereotype." The reason I like him is that, despite having those characteristics at face value, he still manages to be a very powerful force for good in this movie. He rescues his hedgehog friend while simultaneously driving away the great spiders*. He tracks down the source of dark magic and attempts to investigate all on his own, then manages to fend off (probably) the Witch-King of Angmar, then only flees in the face of Sauron, which pretty much no one could have fought one-on-one. He risks his own life, and the lives of his rabbits, to try to rescue Gandalf's party so they could continue their journey.

So despite Radagast's hippie-ish, possibly drugged, I-love-animals-so-much-I-give-them-people-names exterior, he is still presented to the audience as a very capable character who is clearly on the side of good. The humor aspects of his character provide a fun contrast to his powers, and that is a large part of why Radagast has become my favorite Tolkien character in the last week.

*This scene really made no sense to me, and is probably the main biggest complaint I have with the Radagast subplot. I don't understand why removing the sickness from Bartholomew would make the great spiders leave. It seems like the dark energy is still there, inside Radagast's house; why would the spiders care if it's in a hedgehog or in a bottle? Perhaps someone with greater Tolkien knowledge than me can explain something I don't know about the spiders?
Radagast? (Spoilers) by Huinesoron on 2012-12-17 09:46:00 UTC Reply

I don't actually know what people have against movie!Radagast. I'll go into this in more (er, probably less) detail in my full review, but...

The Encyclopedia of Arda indicates him as a presumed member of the White Council, but he's never stated to be one. Of Tolkien's specific statements, we know that Aiwendil was a follower of Yavanna (noted for getting very, uh, snippy with her craftsman, people-centred husband) whose company was forced on Saruman - so yeah, I can't see them getting on too well.

We also know that (quoting Unfinished Tales) 'Of all the Istari, only one [Gandalf] remained faithful. 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'. Radagast as we first see him exactly fits that description - down to the specific word 'enamoured'. The main problem with him is that he bothered to seek out Gandalf at all. :P

And... y'know what, I think it was good to see a different form of divine magic at work. Mithrandir mostly uses fire (hence Narya, confrontations with Balrogs, and potentially even special concern about dragons) and mind magic (we saw some healing/soothing on Thorin at the end - and remember that he's a Maia of Manwe and Nienna), while Saruman (as a follower of Aule) tends to resort to naked force or, again, mind magic (but influencing rather than soothing - they both have quite a voice on them).

With Radagast, we saw a different archetype: object centred (that crystal), difficult healing (given how much he had to focus on the words).... and mind magic again, but this time the kind that befriends - part soothing, part control, but mostly neither. He just uses it on animals, not people.

And as with the other two, it both comes from and feeds into his personality. Saruman is a controller even without his voice - he's constitutionally incapable of not being in charge. Gandalf has a wicked sense of humour, but a kind one, because his powers are centred around:

A deadly sword, a healing hand,
a back that bent beneath its load;
a trumpet-voice, a burning brand,
a weary pilgrim on the road.
(Thanks to F. Baggins, esq.)

And Radagast? He's skittish like the animals he associates with, not very good at distrust (he trusts Saruman to the last, and by the film, pretty much walks straight into an enemy stronghold) since he's friendship-based ('Aiwendil' means 'Friend of birds', just as 'Olorin' is 'The Dreaming Visionary' and 'Curumo' is 'The Crafty One' - again, all leading back to their particular mental magic), and when he does exert overt power, it's thoroughly nature-based (the crystal again, whatever he was collecting things for, and those rabbits).

Yes, it's jarring seeing a cousin of Mithrandir and Curunir act like that - but maybe it should be. He's essentially a nature spirit by this time - even more so than the ever-absent Bombadil, who was Master without being particularly concerned with his domain - and nature spirits are... well, in touch with nature.

The one thing I would not have expected would be a calm, collected, noble-looking man in a brown robe who sits down at councils and debates things in archaic style. Radagast fell, remember - and he did so by getting too close to his favourite subject, nature.

As a final comparison - Saruman pretty much accused Gandalf of getting 'too close', to Hobbits in particular. And what do we know about Gandalf? He has a sense of humour - unlike his cousins, but a lot like Hobbits - he likes fireworks and safe spectacle - again, very Hobbitish (and can you imagine Saruman putting on a firework show?) - he enjoys being around Hobbits, and, oh yes, he smokes pipe-weed, which is a very hobbitish trait.

So Gandalf gets close to and ends up very like his charges. If Radagast did the same thing - and we know he did - then he ought to end up like his charges - the birds and beasts.

Do you think he wasn't?

hS

It's just... by Neshomeh on 2012-12-17 17:41:00 UTC Reply

Like I said, he made me uncomfortable. Nothing objective about it; I just felt viscerally uneasy any time he was onscreen. Like watching someone poke sticks at the slow kid, or when someone who hasn't bathed in a week and reeks of booze comes up to you looking for change. The way they played him was just yucky to me. A yucky, one-note, drug-addled-hippie stereotype.

For something objectively off, this is something I'm surprised you didn't cover in the history part of your review: when do you think Radagast's scenes at Rhosgobel and Dol Guldur were meant to have taken place in the movie? The way they cut back and forth between them and the main storyline, I'd think those events were happening at the same time—but then, how long did it take him to get from Dol Guldur to Gandalf and the Dwarves? And if the Necromancer was barely stirring and Dol Guldur mostly unoccupied as the quest was on its way, where exactly did Gandalf find Thrain imprisoned, and by whom?

Or, suppose we were seeing Radagast however many (hundreds of?) years ago, as per canon. What prompted him to leave just in time to catch up with Gandalf on the road? Why now, and not earlier or later? And, like you said, why ever, with him being him?

I'd also like to know how he crossed the Anduin and the Misty Mountains with his rabbit-sledge in any event, but that's minor. He IS a wizard, I'm sure he figured something out. I'm just curious.

I don't think he really behaves like any wild animal or bird I've ever seen. If that were so, I would expect him to be more cautious and quiet, quick to react when startled (to either flee, freeze, or fight), but otherwise very much taking his time to assess things before/while acting—looking, listening, probably smelling and tasting, too. Animals tend to conserve their energy. I'd expect him to move with greater restraint and efficiency, and to talk a whole helluva lot less. Radagast withdrew from the problems of the world to tend to his creatures, so I'd expect him to be withdrawn, a bit vague, not really on the same page as other people, but still capable of getting a coherent thought across once he remembers he needs to use words.

And he doesn't need to be constantly covered in bird poop. Animals DO groom themselves, and they don't trap each other underneath hats, where it's tight and dark and they can't escape. Actual animal-lovers don't do that, either.

~Neshomeh, starting to feel like she, Phobos, and VM saw a different movie than everyone else.

Some answers by Huinesoron on 2012-12-17 20:47:00 UTC Reply

You're right that his character was quite stereotyped - but then, he was in the film for, what, ten minutes? Fifteen at the outside? Getting 'absentminded' across by showing a lack of grooming is less time-consuming than by, well, writing a script that includes it. Not that that's a good thing, but that's film for you, I'm afraid.

(On which note - our screening had a trailer for 'The Impossible', in which the tragedy of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami is shown through the only kind of characters cinemagoers can relate to - white ones. That's appalling)

I didn't cover it because I didn't write the whole review at once, and it slipped in between 'I should put this in' and 'meh, already did Radagast'. :P I don't think they're actually concurrent events - that's just a cinematic device ("Meanwhile, in the past...") - but I think we're supposed to read it as him fleeing directly from Dol Guldur to Gandalf. Yes, that would take a while, so it can't have been actually simultaneous, but it also wasn't 400 years.

I wondered about Thrain at the time, and to be honest I haven't a clue. From the dialogue we've had ('Your father gave it to me' and 'Thrain went mad'), it sounds like Thrain's disappearance is just going to be the battle. He must have given it to Gandalf earlier (didn't he say it was 'for safekeeping'? Not what you'd say if you were in Sauron's clutches). I don't think the exchange happened in Dol Guldur this time through - though I wouldn't be surprised if Gandalf met Thrain during the film in the dungeons.

Do I agree with that? No. I don't know why they did it, and it jars. Probably solely so they could have Radagast discover the corruption of the Greenwood in real-time, but that's, er, stupid.

How did he cross the mountains? Well, we know he's friends with the Eagles... and we know they can refrain from eating things they think are rabbits (eg, Bilbo).

As to behaving like a wild animal... well, I'm a chemist, not an animalologist, so I'll take your word for that. I think it's important to remember that he's still a man (lowercase), though - he may have picked up a few animal traits, but he's still fundamentally thinking like a person. Possibly a drugged one, but actually I just figured Saruman made that up. Literally the only scene which could confirm it is the bizarre stick-insect moment, which, er, what. I'd have to say he was just very nervous about being around people - particularly his cousin Gandalf.

Hey, if Saruman talks the same way about pipe-weed and mushrooms, does that mean he's on the mushrooms, too?

As to the bird nest... eh. I'd call it a protective measure, since the woods are turning dark, and probably one he's not used to yet (hence the droppings). I noticed that the colour of the tangle changed significantly between Mirkwood and the Trollshaws - it was all pretty fresh in the first scene.

I'd also point out that no, birds wouldn't do that normally - but they're under the magical influence of a demigod. And if I'm right that his mental forte is trust and friendship, then yes, he could probably persuade them to do almost anything for 'their own good'. Saruman nearly persuaded several of the Fellowship that he was on their side, after all...

Which means, actually, that Radagast could be a terrifying villain, done right. Someone who can make you trust him to the extent of violating every instinct you have to do what he says? I'm scared already, frankly.

You're certainly right that you could present Radagast differently - you could play him as Mowgli, Tarzan, Bombadil, Beorn, or any other nature-type character. Yes, he could be very collected, cautious, unwilling to speak, but coherent when he needs to be - but that's far from the only possibility. And, honestly? Given that we have exactly three (maybe four) Hobbit-LotR characters anywhere near equivalent to his level of power (Gandalf, Saruman, Bombadil maybe, and Gwaihir) - and not many more in Silm (Huan, maybe? Melian? None of the Ainur do a lot of talking over there) - there's very little to say how he should be.

All That Aside... I think he was played up for comic effect (yeah, I know, duh). Again, this is Bilbo telling a story to Frodo on the cusp of adulthood - or, if you prefer, it's an adaptation of a children's book. A lot of things are comedified. This is hardly on the dwarf-tossing level of blasphemy.

hS

PS: No, I think it was the same film. :P Hellga seems to have seen a different version to me, since we remember different songs, but that's about it. People are allowed to have differing opinions, you know... :P

I just want to enjoy the movie while I can by Hellga on 2012-12-18 00:21:00 UTC Reply

Because once I get the DVD and watch it a couple more times, I will start picking out all the things I dislike.

Besides, after LotR, I don't have terribly high expectations of PJ. I don't think I have managed to force myself rewatch The Two Towers twice in the last 10 years - mainly because it was such a disappointment the first time I saw it, with expectations rather high post-FotR. Trust me, life is much easier when you have low expectations...

I have 11 years of working with wide patient populations under my belt, and I am entirely unfazed by pretty much anything I see. And I teach my interns to love the morons, for without them we would have neither six-figure salaries nor job security. :)
Difference of standards for film, maybe? by Neshomeh on 2012-12-17 23:56:00 UTC Reply

Getting 'absentminded' across by showing a lack of grooming is less time-consuming than by, well, writing a script that includes it. Not that that's a good thing, but that's film for you, I'm afraid.

Trouble is, I don't accept "it's film" as an excuse for bad storytelling. Different storytelling, yes; visuals over exposition, yes—but not a quick visual over scriptwriting, direction, and acting. If this is a case of visual instead of writing, stereotype over substance, then it's pure laziness, which is bad in any medium. If they didn't want to spend time on the character, they could have just left him out instead. Since they put him in, I expect professional time and effort spent on him.

I think at least ten of his fifteen-ish minutes were spent on that hedgehog, anyway. What was its name? Bartholomew or something like that? O.o

Anyway. What's really confusing me here, and the source of my feeling that maybe I'm on another planet or something, is that lots of people seem to be saying this movie was awesome, they really loved it, it's better than (at least some of) the LotR movies, etc., in spite of its flaws. I mean, just to continue with this one point as an example, you agree that Radagast's character is a stereotype, that it's bad for quick visuals to trump writing, that it's dumb to have him witness the corruption of the Greenwood in real time, that the stick-insect moment was bizarre, and that he was overall jarring, but you still liked him, or at least didn't mind him. Was there really something so good about him that it overcomes the flaws? If so, what is it and where can I see it? Or, is it that you don't mind because it's film, which takes me back to my first paragraph?

Differences of opinion are fine, but I like to understand why they exist, is all. For instance, I understand completely why people (Phobos, for instance) don't mind the Elves at Helm's Deep even though it makes me tear my hair: it doesn't do anything to negatively impact the story, so if you don't have any particular attachment to book!canon, there's nothing objectively wrong with it. It doesn't do anything to positively impact the story, either, but you wouldn't necessarily know that unless someone who read the books told you. The point is, from a purely movie-based standpoint, it doesn't hurt anything.

I think Radagast really does, though. Again, he's just a single point, but maybe if I can understand this one point of difference, it'll help me understand the rest.

~Neshomeh, lost and trying to get un-lost.

Concerning Wizards by Huinesoron on 2012-12-18 10:20:00 UTC Reply

The problem I have with elves at the Hornburg is that they're the wrong elves in the wrong place. Even allowing for the fact that Galadriel could have said 'Hey, that alliance my nephew/remote cousin made, I guess that's sort of binding on me, so I'll send some of my non-high-elf chums along to help out'... the Last Alliance (which Haldir, if you recall, specifically says they've come to renew) was not with the Northmen. Elves at the Pelennor would have made sense. Elves at Dagorlad would have made sense. Elves in Rohan makes no sense at all.

Whereas scatterbrained Radagast does make sense; it doesn't run wildly counter to what we know of canon (unlike, I confess, ghost!Witch-King and abandoned!Dol Guldur).

Okay. Since you're trying to understand, and I'm clearly explaining badly, I'll go for point-by-point in the hopes that a scattergun approach will hit something we agree on. :P

Trouble is, I don't accept "it's film" as an excuse for bad storytelling.[...]

I don't think he suffered from bad storytelling, per se. I think (and will no doubt expound on at length) that they decided his character didn't need lengthy explanations when they'd rather get on with the story. He had script, direction, and acting - it just wasn't focussed on the very small area of 'how calm and collected is he'. More specifically, everything we saw of Radagast was of him in a panic (or near enough); the lack of grooming lets us know that he's always a bit out of things, rather than being that way just because he's panicking. Having a five-minute scene of him being scatterbrained in normal circumstances would have thrown the pacing off, neh?

Yes, it was over the top - bird dropping in the hair - but it wasn't bad, I don't think. So to that extent it was 'lazy' - exaggerating the visual to give us a bit of information we could have had through more subtle costuming - but, y'know, that is film. If you don't trust that your audience will notice his hair is a bit tangled, you throw bird poo at him. The dwarves were fairly played-up visually, too ("I am Dwalin. I have tattoos and drink ALE. Hello Mr. Baggins.").

I think at least ten of his fifteen-ish minutes were spent on that hedgehog, anyway.

And I bet there will be Sebastian fanfic before the week is out. :P The hedgehog was there for two purposes: to get across 'wildly involved in animals', and to do whatever they were doing with the spiders. No, doc, I have no idea what was up with 'Magic! Spiders! The magipoison draws them near and they come from the Stronghold! Aaaaah!'. I'd forgotten that in amongst everything else.

What's really confusing me here, and the source of my feeling that maybe I'm on another planet or something, is that lots of people seem to be saying this movie was awesome, they really loved it, it's better than (at least some of) the LotR movies, etc., in spite of its flaws.

I would say: the movie was fun (and funny in places), less enraging than at least Two Towers - see Haldir-related comments on canon - and, yes, awesome to watch. I think the difference may be that you and I were expecting different films - you seem to have been wanting to watch an epic fantasy, whereas I was anticipating something even more children's-book-like than what we got.

I mean, just to continue with this one point as an example, you agree that Radagast's character is a stereotype,

I think doctorlit explains this better (more concisely) than I could, so I wont' try to repeat it. :P

that it's bad for quick visuals to trump writing,

Yes - but as gone into at length above, I don't think this happened. I think they used a quick visual to convey one aspect of a character - his nature in peace-time - that would otherwise require restructuring an entire scene.

that it's dumb to have him witness the corruption of the Greenwood in real time,

Yep. But I don't know what they plan to do with that. It's not dumb per se to have Greenwood be corrupted virtually overnight - it's just that this is the wrong time for it. So that comes down to a canon break, not Radagast specifically. And I did say that I disapprove of what they've done with the non-Hobbit-book canon material.

that the stick-insect moment was bizarre,

But funny. :P 'Oh, it's not a thought - it's a stick insect'. And this is a film that focusses more on humour than LotR did - but not by turning specific characters into comic relief, thank Varda. Wait, thank Vana, she's probably the closest thing to a Muse of Comedy in Arda (Springtime, right?).

and that he was overall jarring,

Did I? I don't think I meant to agree with that. :P He would certainly have been jarring in LotR, but so would most of the dwarves - especially The Stupid One (actually, he was more jarring, back at the Party. I'm kind of glad I don't know which one was wrecked that way) - but that's epic fantasy, and this isn't... not quite.

It's a different film series, and while Radagast is quite... strange to someone expecting LotR-style realism (hyperfast rabbits?), he's certainly no Jar-Jar. He may (I'm speculating here) have been aimed at the younger members of the audience - or he may have been an attempt to write a character who isn't actually in the books into someone amusing yet important - or he may have been both.

Or neither. I'unno.

but you still liked him, or at least didn't mind him. Was there really something so good about him that it overcomes the flaws?

I liked him. He was funny, and he doesn't discord with my ideas of how Radagast should be. Not to say he exactly matches what I would have expected, but he isn't in active opposition to what I would picture. That doesn't appear to be the same for you, which I suspect is where the difference lies.

It comes back to Haldir o Rohan, really. Phobos didn't mind Elves at the Hornburg because he was more concerned with how the story hung together in isolation than with how it fitted (or rather didn't fit) with the original canon. I don't object to Radagast because I see him more as a portrayal of how the book character might be rendered into film than as a dissertation on perfection in filmmaking.

Or, honestly? I don't know. I'm making this up as I go along. All I really know is, when it wasn't butchering the backstory, I enjoyed the film.

hS

Expectations by Neshomeh on 2012-12-19 21:22:00 UTC Reply

It's true, I was expecting something more LotR-esque. But since the movie itself put that in my head, I can hardly be blamed for it. {= P I mean, they went to such lengths to use the same music, set it right before the trilogy starts, lay on the cameos and callbacks, and include all the heavy, serious stuff associated with the return of Sauron.

Also, I guess we interpreted Bilbo's voiceover differently. Where, based on something you said elsewhere, I think you heard "Frodo, you're not quite an adult yet, so I'm going to tell this story to you with lots of funny bits so it's not too much for you," I heard "Frodo, you're darn near an adult now, so I'm going to tell this story to you like it really happened, with the gritty realism you couldn't have handled when you were younger ~~and whatever canon-warping nonsense PJ has thrown in~~."

I figured we'd have scarier Trolls, Goblins less willing to have polite conversations about trespassing and more interested in chopping off limbs, Dwarves that aren't quite so bumbling and silly that they get captured multiple times without any fight, etc. And that did happen to a degree. So the would-be-funny bits (which are very low-brow/childish for the most part, IMO), really didn't sit well with me, especially when they involved bad CG to boot. Humor in a drama is fine, but I felt like I was watching a cartoon aimed at five-year-olds half the time. "lol, Troll snot! lol, Troll butts! lol, the Great Goblin/Bombur fell on everyone and it is funny because he is fat! lol, Radagast has a bug in his mouth for no reason! lol, salad is yucky! lol, dissociative identity disorder is silly!"

Okay, that last one is an old gripe of mine, and the two personalities thing does work to explain why Gollum/Smeagol agrees to a friendly game of riddles here. Unfortunately, it's also a bit of a canon break, since the "Smeagol" side doesn't really emerge until he meets Frodo years later—because Frodo is actually decent and kind to him, as I recall. And everything would work just fine without making light of personality disorders with a little frigging finesse.

But I digress.

Anyway. I guess that explains it? I don't like the ham-handed dumbing down of complex ideas done for the lulz and/or under the assumption that the audience is too thick to understand anything less?

As for Radagast in particular, what doctorlit says makes sense, but I guess at the time I found everything else about him too distracting to appreciate the parts where he was being competent. Also, we were pretty forcefully set up to see him as a buffoon after Gandalf had his line: "Well, I think he's a very ~~special~~ great wizard... in his own way..." and then we cut to ten minutes of panic and fuss over a sickeningly cutesy CG hedgehog. That thing is straight out of Once Upon a Forest, if you ask me. Why Radagast didn't have access to lungwort and eyebright, I cannot fathom.

And I didn't understand the spiders, either. What, they've only just now appeared? Have they been hiding in Dol Guldur the whole time up until now? What have Thranduil's people had to do for sport without spiders to hunt?

... This post is getting silly and long, so I think I'll end it here. ^_^;

~Neshomeh

Silly, silly, silly! by Huinesoron on 2012-12-20 08:35:00 UTC Reply

If there's one thing I can stand, it's people being silly!

Actually I wasn't interpreting from the voiceover at all - just from the canon. The Party is Frodo's coming-of-age, so extrapolating back to the human equivalent (~18), he's actually still quite immature.

(Any 18-year-olds, feel free to disagree with me once you're at least four years older than that. :P)

As to the CG, since it's come up a lot - Kaitlyn's pointed out (and I don't know where she got the fact from) that the Hobbit project has a significantly lower budget than LotR did. Lower budget means, unavoidably, lower CG quality ("But hS, if they'd just removed the stick insect--!" No). And, honestly? There were only a couple of places it caught me out. Compared to whatever I was watching the other day where the CG objects didn't even have shadows...

But maybe you saw it in 3D or the higher film-rate. I couldn't speak for that, except to say that (if that's the case), maybe CGers aren't used to it either... ;)

Why Radagast didn't have access to lungwort and eyebright, I cannot fathom.

Didn't he? I can't remember the specifics, but I didn't think we saw what he specifically used - just that it didn't work against, er, black magic and witchcraft. Which is... reasonable?

And hedgepigs are cute. :P If it helps, imagine that whole sequence was actually filtered through Radagast's perception of the world - so the animals are supercute because Radagast thinks animals are supercute. ;)

(I am now picturing the Annual Greenwood Cross-Country Moose Polo Championship. You are a terrible person)

hS

Stuff and things. by Neshomeh on 2012-12-20 16:10:00 UTC Reply

18 may not be the most mature of life-stages, but I think most of us are up to hearing/reading/watching serious stories without body fluid jokes and such to keep us entertained by then. If we're going to keep using this analogy, that must go for Hobbit-youths, too.

... So wait. They had a lower budget, and that called for more movies with lots of CG in? 'Cause first it was two, and then somehow they decided they needed a third one. ... I... what... I don't even... >.
I don't actually know what frame rate I saw. I didn't even know there were different ones until afterward. Somehow I doubt our theater is up to the higher one, though.

just that it didn't work against, er, black magic and witchcraft. Which is... reasonable?

Nope. Lungwort and eyebright magically cures adorable, stricken woodland creatures. This cannot be refuted. Maybe he also needed the voice of Michael Crawford to sing the appropriate counter-spell, though.

Also, Radagast!vision is creepy. Is it like Pyrovision? Does he also see visions of candy and rainbows when he slaughters opposing team members?

I am now picturing the Annual Greenwood Cross-Country Moose Polo Championship. You are a terrible person.

{X D That is awesome. In fact, it's probably happening at OFUM right now, with fanbrats as the balls. *g*

~Neshomeh, sometimes a terrible person.

Well, Sebastian is clearly the most important character by SingingTheThunder on 2012-12-18 18:15:00 UTC Reply

Although the stick insect moment was just ... pointless. Plus did they need to confirm that all wizards are on drugs?

I liked Radagast. Though the bird poo was just pointless and the rabbits inexplicable.

I missed Goblin singing too by Hellga on 2012-12-17 03:50:00 UTC Reply

The only thing I loved about the Rankin Bass cartoon was the Down, Down to the Goblin Town song - I wish they had something like that here. They did have the cutesy Goblin mail system - so why not singing?

They... did? by Huinesoron on 2012-12-17 09:20:00 UTC Reply

It wasn't quite in the same place, but when the Goblins are bringing up the torture devices - right before Mithrandir shows up - they sing. I even caught the words 'Goblin-Town' in there.

Actually (and memory is already a little hazy - goodness, it's been more than twelve hours already!), I think it was mostly the king singing, but the song was there.

Fifteen Birds In Five Fir Trees, however, wasn't there. Probably because they only spent a couple of minutes in Five Fir Trees before ending up in One Collapsing Tree.

hS

I caught a bit of singing. by Cassie on 2012-12-18 01:47:00 UTC Reply

It wasn't very pleasant. Goblins aren't known for their a capella harmonies.

Probably because they only spent a couple of minutes in Five Fir Trees before ending up in One Collapsing Tree.

This made me giggle harder than anything has the right to at 2 a.m.
On the topic of singing, I wound up getting extremely infuriated at my mother because she decided that the dwarves' big serious number - "Far over the misty mountains cold..." - was the perfect time to start opening loudly rustling bags of sweets. I had to lean over and hiss at her to cut it out several times. *grumblemutter why couldn't she have waited for a louder, less poignant bit, I'm going to go see it in the cinema by myself at some point and not be disturbed by maternal units who don't understand >:( *

:P
Possibly by Hellga on 2012-12-18 00:23:00 UTC Reply

I did not particularly care for the whole Goblin Town sequence as played out in the movie, and at 2am or so after a 14-hour work day I am not at my sharpest anyway.

Well, my full review is below (SPOILERS) by Hellga on 2012-12-16 19:29:00 UTC Reply

I see what you all are saying about the changes - and some of them are more irritating than others, but I have learned with PJ to view movies as a rather AU fanfic rather than straight translations of books to the screen... so I don't get so worked up over all the differences. It's oodles better than the Two Towers, and I am glad for that. :)

____________________________(copied from my LJ)

I actually loved the movie quite a bit - though I tend to like almost everything I see in the theater, and my opinion may change a couple years down the road as I keep watching and rewatching it.

I would rate it 9/10 as a movie, and 5.5/10 as Tolkien adaptation.

I think what the movie does beautifully is show Bilbo's character development, and build Dwarves into really sympathetic characters, though there really was no opportunity for most of the Dwarves to develop a personality. Really only Thorin, Bofur and Balin get much speaking time, and out of the rest of them only Dwalin and Kili get a chance to do something more...
Thorin is not quite the book's Thorin in terms of his looks, though I think the personality of the Prince in Exile was captured quite well. And movie!Thorin is one hot Dwarf. The only character in the movie I really wanted to fangirl.

The prologue with Bilbo and Frodo - I think it was unnecessary, but I can understand PJ's desire to connect this movie to the previous ones for the non-Tolkienite audience. It does work, so I am not against it.

The Erebor part of the prologue did bring out sarcasm in me. I do buy into the idea that it was a great and powerful kingdom, but not to such an extent. Dwarves did not even live there for that long, with moving to the Grey Mountains and then back... I intensely disliked them showing Thranduil coming to pay homage to Thror... as if!!! I should also say I don't like PJ's vision of the caves - any of them. Makes me wonder if he has ever seen a real cave.

I did love how the Smaug's attack was shown. And his lovely tail. The pinkish tint to his red color made me wonder what a hot pink Smaug would look like. What I did not like is that the Elves arrived there to watch the attack (how did they get there so quickly?) and then watched until it was all over - then turned around and left. At least they did not applaud... I simply don't get why PJ wanted to amplify the dislike between Dwarves and Elves to such an extent. Makes me really wonder how he is going to show the whole Mirkwood portion of the movie...

I liked the Bilbo-Gandalf meeting scene, and how at times they quoted the book directly. While hobbit-hole being overrun by Dwarves was slightly different from the book - it was quite well done. And I *love* Dwarven singing. I loved it in the trailer and I loved in the movie.

Bilbo's decision to join the group is all his own, without Gandalf's interference (though here he did not have to clean up after Dwarves' breakfast - that could make a difference ), but dynamics between him and the Dwarves is more based on the Unfinished Tales and the Quest for Erebor than on the Hobbit book itself.

The whole Troll scene plays out rather different from the book in the beginning (though the end is the same). The Trolls were rather sympathetic in their own way, I must say, and their culinary discussion reminded me of the Ratatouille a bit. I actually liked that the Dwarves were more battle-ready than in the book, though why were they so incompetent? Was that the first time they ever encountered a troll, or what?

I liked the realistic depiction of their cave - with the flies and the stench, but the Elvish swords made me wonder. Why did the Sting glow blue but not Glamdring and Orcrist? They are all three made in Gondolin... Sure, the books don't specifically mentino Glamdring or Orcrist glowing, but is that the question of Aragorn's pants or is there something more to it? I invented a theory that maybe Bilbo's sword, being small in size but shaped more like a sword than a dagger, was a child's sword. And that's why it glowed - a child may not be able to discern approaching orcs, but an adult elf should be able to.

The battle of Azanulbizar was shown as a flashback and on the whole I rather disliked it as a Tolkien adaptation, though it does fit with the way PJ wanted to build the movie. The story was told by Balin to Bilbo and Fili and Kili - I am surprised those two did not know it, being his own nephews. Sure, they were too young to have taken a part in it - but surely they have heard it many times before. I was disappointed that there was some random battle cry instead of the famed Baruk Khazad! - probably because most of the Dwarves, for whatever reason, used weapons other than axes? I also disliked how the battle flow was shown. Azog beheaded Thror - Thrain instantly went mad - Dwarves started running in panic instead of going to avenge their king. Then Thorin did remember he was a Prince and a Hero and attacked Azog (I understand not introducing Nain and Dain here, there is barely time to develop the major characters). Somehow ended up without a sword or a shield (I always imagined that he lost his shield when it simply ended up cracked by taking too many strikes in the course of the long battle!) and defended himself with an oak branch (more like oak fireplace log!) and then managed to chop off Azog's hand (not the head). Also, I couldn't help laughing every time I head The Pale Orc - made me think of Die Blonde Bestie...

Even though Dwarves have won the battle, there were not enough of them left alive to retake Moria and so they had to remain exiled homeless people. And Azog became the main enemy of this movie (and possibly movie Number 2 and maybe even Number 3 since he is left alive at the end of this particular movie. He also put a price on Thorin's head and sent out his Orcs to hunt for him - while camping out on Amon Sul. Made me wonder how Dunedain allowed that - then I remembered that in the Jackson's version of Middle-earth they do not exist.

Radagast episodes were not as annoying as they could have been, though I think they were quite unnecessary nonetheless. I think the story of Dol Guldur could have been retold by Gandalf, as in the book - even if they wanted to show it as a new development instead of a 400-year old story it was... Cutesy animal scenes I did not care for.

I intensely disliked the Dwarves being chased into Rivendell by the Orcs. First the incompetent Dwarves who can't dispose of the single Orc scout with less that six or so blows, allowing him ample time to alert everyone. Then Elrond and his little army riding out to fight the Orcs who have crossed!!! Bruinen!!! and not even managing to slay all of them...

Elrond was the same rather grouchy movie!Elrond and mockingly fed the Dwarves only salad accompanied by Elvish music. The White Council was taking place in Rivendell at the same time Dwarves were there. I suppose it is OK for it to be held there - I don't think books specify where it had taken place... even if I personally have a hard time imagining Saruman leaving Orthanc willingly by that time... What I have an issue with is why the Council discussed Thorin's merry band instead of Dol Guldur. And the idiotic phrase about 400 years of peace - where was that peace, pardon me? And where the heck did you get the 400 year mark from? What the scene did show well was the dynamics of Gandalf+Galadriel vs Saruman. Galadriel was the same as in LotR - though I liked here a bit better here than in FotR. The little nitpicky things - her silver nail polish (did not know Elvish manicure techniques were that advanced) and that she was only at most an inch taller than Gandalf, instead of good 10-12 inches...

I had no problems with pacing of the movie (some critics complained it was rather slow) up to this point, but after Rivendell I did have many issues with it. The battle of the mountains coming to life (Storm Giants, they called them in the movie) was utterly unnecessary, full of cheap CGI and far too long. The other scene that was far too long was the whole running through the Goblin Town.

I really liked the conversation between Bilbo and Bofur on the steps of the Goblin Town. I think it is a key scene for the movie!Bilbo character development and a very strong scene in and of itself. In the Goblin town itself, I missed the song - that was the one thing I really liked in the Rankin-Bass cartoon... The King was ugly but not so ugly as to distract from the proceedings. The whole scene should have been edited to about half its length, especially the part after Gandalf rescues the Dwarves. Though I really liked the one minor detail - the scribe!

Almost every reviewer I have read so far has loved the Riddles scene. I must say I did not find it that impressive - maybe because it was interspersed with the chase through the Goblin town? Gollum is very good, but really quite the same as we have seen him in TTT and RotK. The Gollum scene I really loved was the one at the very end, where Bilbo was thinking whether to kill Gollum, and poor Smeagol was so crushed by the loss of the ring...

Then the famous flaming fir cones battle took place. It was not too bad, but I rather disliked one change PJ has made. Thorin jumped out of the tree to fight Azog - OK, that part I can buy, it is not out of character for him. What I refuse to buy is that no one, not even Fili and Kili, followed him - but Bilbo Baggins the Amazing Fighting Hobbit did. And even was more successful against the warg-riding Orcs than the warrior Thorin. The only reason for this scene to be there, I suppose, is that they could then show Thorin finally accepting Bilbo as the member of his company, but I still did not care for it.

The Eagles did come but they really did not talk. They simply deposited them all atop Carrock and left. The final few moments were quite well done...
I am looking forward to seeing the movie at least one more time, and to the two films that follow. After FotR, I had very high hopes for TTT which unfortunately were sorely disappointed - I hope with the second Hobbit movie it will not be the case.
I'm still trying to figure out how I feel about it. by TheMadHatteress on 2012-12-16 17:19:00 UTC Reply

I saw the movie last night and I have to say that I probably would have liked it more if I hadn't read the book first. Overall it's a good movie, but all the canon discrepancies really detracted from my enjoyment of the film.
The biggest thing that bothered me was Radagast. I'm not really sure what I was expecting from him, but that was definitely not it. We're talking about a wizard who's supposed to be at about the same level as Gandalf, but they made him seem like just some reclusive loony who enjoys mushrooms a bit too much. I also was somewhat bothered by that fact that even though Bilbo was the main character the focus wasn't really on him as much as it was on Gandalf.
Other minor bothers include the lack of new music, Thranduil on a moose, and at the very end when the eagles just drop them off on a mountain in the middle of nowhere.
I think that the underlying issue is that they tried to direct The Hobbit in the same way that they directed The
Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit was originally written as a children's book, while The Lord of the Rings is a lot darker and more complex, so trying to direct them the same way is just looking for failure.
Just one last random little tidbit: even though Smaug didn't speak once Benedict Cumberbatch's name is still in the credits. I have no idea why, maybe he voice-acted the roars? :D Just the thought of that is hilarious to me
I liked it by Manzo on 2012-12-16 10:03:00 UTC Reply

I saw it on the midnight showing with some friends, and I thought it was pretty damn good. I'm still not quite sure it really NEEDS to be three movies that are three hours a piece, but I like this one so far.
I have to disagree (Spoiler warning) by Phobos on 2012-12-15 21:45:00 UTC Reply

I won't speak to what I thought of it as a Tolkien adaptation, because I haven't read The Hobbit since the late 90's. What I will talk about is how this stacked up as a movie.

Let me break down what I thought. The pacing was atrocious. There was no time to breathe between some action sequences and yet there were large portions of the film that were, to me, composed of useless filler. They needed to use their time more effectively. For instance, after three hours, I still had no idea who most of the Dwarfs were. I knew Thorin, Fili, Kili, Bofur, Balin and Dwalin. That's it. Out of 13 Dwarves, I could identify six. The rest will have to get used to being "the fat one" or "the one with the funny hair". Cut some of the sweeping panoramic views and use that time to flesh out the characters.

I would also like to address the crap job that they did with the CG in the movie. I mean, we have seen what CG can do, and this was absolutely sub-par. Thranduil on the moose (don't even get me started on the moose) at the beginning looked plastic. I'm not even sure if there is an actor behind all of that. The CG, throughout the movie, was obvious and without restraint. If you have millions of dollars to spend on CG, you'd damn well better get your money's worth. The CG in Lord of the Rings was better than this, and that was made a decade ago. Shouldn't we be better now than we were back then?

One of my biggest disappointments was that they reused so much of the music from the Lord of the Rings movies. I was looking forward to a lot of new, awesome music but we mainly got rehashes of the same themes, with the exception of the Lonely Mountain song that the Dwarfs sang early on, which was everything I was hoping for. Then they played that over and over and over again until I got sick of hearing it. Then there was the random Isengard bad guy music that they played when Thorin was being badass near the end. It made no sense and I expect better.

Now, let's get down to the biggest problem I had with the film. It has no idea what it wants to be. It is trying to be both a serious action/adventure and a light-hearted cartoon. The problem is that it doesn't do either one very well. Each action scene went on way too long and then, like I said earlier, slammed right into the next action scene without any real break. As for the light-hearted cartoon, all the jokes were cliched and you could see them coming a mile away. Some of them were even stuck into sections where they were trying to be dramatic, which completely destroyed both purposes.

So, overall, I have to give the movie 4.5/10 as a film. It isn't the worst movie I've ever seen, but it wasn't even near the standard that Lord of the Rings set.

-Phobos, Theatre Professional

Agreed entirely. by VixenMage on 2012-12-16 02:26:00 UTC Reply

With the exception of the Lonely Mountain track; I'm still humming it two days later.

1) The fight scenes all lasted forever, and every single one was overdramatised to an absurd degree - after the fourth ZOMG CLIMAX OF THORIN LOOKING LIKE A DRAMATIC WARRIOR, it starts to get really old.

2) Gandalf, love him though I do, was basically a deus ex machina. Rather than defeating the trolls by cleverness, he defeats them by magicking a rock. Rather than the eagles finding them by pure luck, Gandalf calls them with his moth-summoning powers. Rather than slipping through the crack in the back of the cave, and then spending hours on a "very touch-and-go" flash-bang, he just sort of POOF! Does it. I could forgive every other part of the CG issues, but this changes the nature of the story by taking the rag-tag by-the-skin-of-their-teeth luck-and-cleverness of the group, and making them Super Powerful Awesome Wizardly Ones.

3) RADAGAST. For pity's sake, isn't he on the White Council? Ridiculous. Utterly unforgivable. Seriously. They could've fit Beorn in by cutting out the "Look at the crazy smelly hippie wizard!" bits (and the over-dramatic cuts to Azog), which brings me to my next point:

4) Azog. Seriously over-used. I get that PJ is trying to set him up as the Big Bad, but in the book, IIRC, he's given one or two mentions, and is off sorta doing his own thing. Not... going on a dwarven man-hunt. It's freaking ridiculous. The story works so much better when he's hidden.

5) On the bright side: the scene with Bilbo and Gollum was excellent.

6) Also, Lindir! Lindir got a speaking part, and that was cool. Made me think of Boz.

I'd have to say, my biggest problem is definitely the narrative changes. The Hobbit isn't the story to be told like Lord of the Rings, with the epic drama, and the Warrior King, and the Mysteriously Apparating Galadriel (SERIOUSLY WHAT WAS THAT), and the Dramatic Close-ups, and the Thranduil On an Elk (pretty sure that was an elk)... it's really just poor directing choices. Which is a shame.

I'd give it more of a 4.

Yup. (More spoilers.) by Neshomeh on 2012-12-16 05:04:00 UTC Reply

The funny thing is, I've spent so much time mentally preparing myself, the canon departures alone, where they aren't part of greater storytelling issues, don't really bother me so much. For instance, I don't mind that Gandalf didn't outsmart the trolls, because Bilbo did it instead. He is the main character, after all; I thought that was appropriate.

Unfortunately, that's one of the very few important things he does. I felt like he was barely there most of the time, which is really sad when the film is called "The Hobbit." I realize he comes into his own and steps up more later, but we should have been with him and feeling how uncomfortable he is with all this adventuring business in the meantime. Like Phobos said, we needed a lot less panoramic shots and chases and bad CG and a lot more character development. On the plus side, agreed that the Riddles in the Dark bit was good, though I'm still not a fan of Split Personality!Gollum. Nor "disease of the mind"!Thror, for that matter. Yes, I know they're setting up for Thorin losing it over the Arkenstone later, but that still doesn't excuse making out like Smaug turned up because there was something wrong with Thror (as opposed to, y'know, the heaps and heaps of treasure).

And that brings me to the fact that I'm totally with you on Radagast. I am a fan of Radagast, and this did not make me happy. Rather, it made me a little uncomfortable, like making fun of the mentally ill, and the bird poo didn't help, either. The one good thing about him was the "Rhosgobel rabbits" line, because that's as close as they got to a recluse who's a little odd and out of context most of the time, but absolutely in his element when it comes to animals. The sledge was horribly CG'd and probably completely impractical, though. And I'm terribly confused about when Radagast's scenes at Rhosgobel and Dol Guldur are meant to have happened. They couldn't touch the canon timeline with a ten foot pole, of course, but I don't even know when they happened in relation to the movie timeline. O.o

As for Azog, he actually ought to be dead at this time, by the canon. I know this because I'd had him mixed up with the Great Goblin before the movie, so I had to look them up to set myself straight last night. Turns out Azog was in fact slain by Dain Ironfoot, who avenged the death of Thror in that battle for Moria. The guy who shows up at the Battle of Five Armies is Azog's son, Bolg. The Great Goblin (source of inappropriate cartoon humor #47 in the film) has nothing to do with either of them.

Anyway, Azog in any form has no business being a Big Bad. We've got enough to worry about between Smaug and the Necromancer, not to mention Trolls, Stone Giants, Goblins, etc., etc. What is he doing there, besides taking up valuable storytelling time with over the top dramatics? I don't know.

Also, may I just mention the number of forced callbacks to LotR? The one that sticks out to me the most is Saruman just about word for word repeating his "your [Gandalf's] love of the halfling's leaf has clearly clouded your mind," only substitute mushrooms for pipeweed and Radagast for Gandalf. >.
Will say I liked the Wargs better in this movie. They looked more like wolves and less like hyenas. And the bit where Gandalf says he's forgotten the names of the Blue Wizards was good. And I also like the Lonely Mountain/Dwarf Theme music. I was relieved to get a break from recycled LotR themes every time it came up.

I also don't have a problem with them trying to tell a more Lord of the Rings-esque story here. The way I see it, they had two choices: try to tell the story like it is in the book and have a serious tonal difference between these movies and the LotR trilogy that might turn people off, or try to tell the story more like LotR, with the Dwarves, the quest, and the dangers a bit more serious. The trouble is, they tried not only to do both, but to ramp everything up to eleven, and it fell on its face.

~Neshomeh

PS. You're right, it might've been an elk. That would make slightly more sense, which I suppose is why my brain turned it into a moose.

Haven't seen the films, but yeah. by Lily Winterwood on 2012-12-16 19:23:00 UTC Reply

I think it's a consequence of PJ deciding to turn a short book into three films, as opposed to what he did with LotR. Now that he's got three three-hour long films to air, he doesn't heve to cut out a thing.
(unless there's an extended edition of what already sounds like an extended edition of a book but whatever)

And oh man, I'm not looking forward to the badfics. I assure you any Bilbo/Smaug released now will get worse when Smaug actually makes an appearance.

Ouch, that bad? by Givala on 2012-12-16 02:55:00 UTC Reply

I haven't seen it yet, but I was expecting something at least a little more true to the canon.
Also, what were Galadriel and Radagast doing there? Seriously, they don't even appear in the book.

But what scares me is how horrible the badfics are gonna be.
The though alone terrifies me.
Legolas was on the movie, wasn't he?
And then we got some good looking dwarfs, King Thranduil...
Heck, even Bilbo is going to be targeted.
Also, if the movie wasn't true to the canon, imagine how the Sues are going to screw up with it!

Too horrible for words.

This may cause me to fire up another agent or two. by KittyNoodles on 2012-12-15 21:37:00 UTC Reply

Not in DMS or Floaters... Maybe the Department of WhatThe. Or DoGA. Or some other under-loved department that could tackle the incoming Hobbit badfics...

Considering that I've already found a 15th walker fic, by Lily Winterwood on 2012-12-16 01:01:00 UTC Reply

I suspect my Agents may have to return to Middle-earth for a bit. :'D

Oh my, I don't think Eledhwen will be too happy about that. by KittyNoodles on 2012-12-16 02:36:00 UTC Reply

At least, not the badfics bit.

Say, Caroline and Veralyn need a little mentoring in the ins and outs of defending the Tolkien-verse. Iff'n you ever need backup on a Hobbit or Rings or Silm mission, they're available. :D

Department of OOC Hobbits? (nm) by SingingTheThunder on 2012-12-15 22:08:00 UTC Reply

I would be wildly amused... by Huinesoron on 2012-12-21 20:24:00 UTC Reply

... to see someone actually write for the DOOCH. And given that it's on my list of Things I've ~~Stol~~Adopted Due To Knowing Their Creators (it's... a long list), I get to say that. :P

(It's on that list as of now, by the way; it's never crossed my mind before. But I claim no authority over it)

hS
And OOC Dwarves by Hellga on 2012-12-15 22:24:00 UTC Reply

I am afraid there will be as much, or more, need for that.

Actually... by KittyNoodles on 2012-12-16 00:51:00 UTC Reply

I might just have Caroline, Veralyn, Fiona, and Gilbert take the brunt of it. I think my next agent pair will be off to work in the Department of Character Protection...