|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Oct 12 2015, 8:47pm
Post #51 of 62
(249 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Sure but I don't think that's what you are asking.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'd say that about every character.
If what you are asking is do I think the character is so different that all comparitive likes or dislikes need no explanation, then no.
But I'm not sure why any of this is easier than the person with the differing taste just saying why. If someone finds the character more interesting in the films than in the books and wants to see more of them then, whilst I don't think it gets us to terrible writing, it's fairly plain as a position.
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Oct 12 2015, 9:05pm
Post #53 of 62
(239 views)
Shortcut
|
Our discussions help keep me distracted from other things I'm supposed to be doing, but would rather not. :)
I agree that all characters will be different, but would you agree then that Radagast is more utilized? Certainly he has a more engaging role in the film than in the books?
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Oct 12 2015, 9:19pm
Post #54 of 62
(233 views)
Shortcut
|
Just in terms of logic.
If someone likes something in the text but dislikes the same thing in the film it's more obvious to say why than wander around the roads of saying there is no reason why there should be any relationship between the two.
I actually think Radagast is very well utilised in the text and has always been a character that intrigued me very much. in both he was a supporting character used as an interlocutor and prompt for Gandalf and an agent in engaging the support of the Eagles. He doesn't have an arc or a personal journey and his role is confined to the part he plays in the story, without prior history or a defined conclusion.
But if we are heading towards some rule about number of lines being proportional to the importance of a mystery-free conclusion, then I'm sure you will just as quickly think of counter examples from the texts, surely?
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Oct 12 2015, 9:28pm
Post #55 of 62
(226 views)
Shortcut
|
it's more obvious to say why than wander around the roads of saying there is no reason why there should be any relationship between the two.
Who said there should be no relationship?
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Oct 12 2015, 9:37pm
Post #57 of 62
(220 views)
Shortcut
|
To so many things. At least personally, that has to be the single thing I'm looking forward to the most in the EE.
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Oct 12 2015, 9:49pm
Post #58 of 62
(214 views)
Shortcut
|
|
No, I think I am distracting you now!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
That's just the other "burden of proof" (for want of a better term - I'm not suggesting there is actually a burden of proof here) position - the less logical one.
If I like that Gandalf smokes a pipe in the text but dislike that he does in the film either it's reasonable to assume a relationship between my likes and the onus points to me to say why my taste is different or it's not reasonable to assume any relationship and the onus is on you to say why I should have similar taste in the matter.
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Oct 12 2015, 11:10pm
Post #59 of 62
(200 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'm afraid we are at an impass..
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
..if you don't agree that Radagast is treated differently in the film than he is in the book, and enough of a difference that one could rightly feel different about the two versions.
Radagast does not hardly feature in the book The Hobbit. He has a big role in The Hobbit films. The way one might experience both versions of the character given the different mediums should be pretty straightforward!
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Oct 12 2015, 11:36pm
Post #60 of 62
(190 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't think I'm saying any of those.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I already said I think all characters are treated differently.
I already said one can feel differently - just say why.
I already said that Ragast's end in the books is in LOTR. If we are comparing his conclusion but we aren't allowed to look at LOTR then that's silly.
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Oct 12 2015, 11:46pm
Post #61 of 62
(185 views)
Shortcut
|
|
This is the disconnect right here
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
If we are comparing his conclusion
We're not. I'm talking about narrative closure for a character specifically within the film medium, and specifically BOTFA. Closure for a character that had a strong open in AUJ and then awkwardly saves Gandalf and awkwardly shows up on an Eagle and then nothing. Same goes for Beorn and his weird parachute drop to nothingness. Closure, within the film. I KNOW that Radagast goes on to play a role in LOTR. Who cares? I'm talking about some kind of satisfying closure actually in the film. I could care less about how he may or may not leave Middle Earth forever mysteriously later in the story. How and why that happens has zilch to do with what happens when he flies in on an Eagle in BOTFA.
(This post was edited by Bishop on Oct 12 2015, 11:47pm)
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Oct 13 2015, 7:46am
Post #62 of 62
(154 views)
Shortcut
|
That has been my question all along. If you find it a difficult one to answer then I'm really not sure why.
How mysterious that, despite earlier comments that there is a relationship between liking Radagst's conclusion on paper and liking the same conclusion on film, they now have nothing to do with one another and must not be compared.
Maybe there is something to the "free pass" thing after all!
|
|
|
|
|
