|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TheBladeGlowsBlue
Ossiriand
Nov 1 2012, 12:23am
Post #1 of 26
(1889 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Radagast? Why?
|
Can't Post
|
|
I am confused that PJ is putting Radagast into the movie(s) when he was omitted from LOTR trilogy, where he would have had some relevance (albeit small) to the plot...
Equally more baffling when you consider PJ left out a far more iconic character from the original movies (Tom Bombadil)... or maybe he is planning to shoe-horn TB into the new trilogy as well, seeing as several characters with little to no bearing on the plot of the book are getting an airing (Galadriel, Radagast, Legolas etc.)
I am slightly concerned these movies are going to have no pace to them whatsoever if we are to be sidetracked with all these cameos!
Maegnas aen estar nin dagnir in yngyl im
(This post was edited by TheBladeGlowsBlue on Nov 1 2012, 12:24am)
|
|
|
Ardamírë
Doriath
Nov 1 2012, 12:36am
Post #2 of 26
(1218 views)
Shortcut
|
It appears that the Dol Guldor subplot is going to be quite extensive. And as such, characters such as Galadriel, Saruman, & Radagast are going to be pretty important characters in these movies.
"...and his first memory of Middle-earth was the green stone above her breast as she sang above his cradle while Gondolin was still in flower." -Unfinished Tales
|
|
|
There&ThereAgain
Nargothrond
Nov 1 2012, 12:53am
Post #3 of 26
(1250 views)
Shortcut
|
is iconic and amazing and awesome, but really was irrelevant to their interpretation of the LOTR trilogy.
Radagast was also an unnecessary complexity to LOTR's plot (as evidenced by the moth), but with Dol Guldur and Mirkwood being important set pieces in The Hobbit I bet PJ and CO saw an opportunity to integrate Raddy into the fold (due to Rhosgobel's proximity to these locations).
Plus we get Sylvester McCoy and that's awesome. 
"The world is indeed full of peril, and in it there are many dark places; but still there is much that is fair; and though in all lands love is now mingled with grief, it grows perhaps the greater."-J.R.R. Tolkien
"Thanks for the money!" -George Lucas
|
|
|
thirdeblue
Lindon
Nov 1 2012, 1:27am
Post #4 of 26
(1074 views)
Shortcut
|
As as to why Tom Bombadil was omitted from Fellowship of the Ring...the movie runs 3 hours and 28 minutes as it is and Bombadil could be excised pretty easily. I suspect PJ's not a big fan of Bombadil anyway and probably wouldn't include the character even if given the opportunity. See also: Scouring of the Shire.
PJ's The Hobbit is really going to be "The Hobbit +" with a much larger focus on the greater geopolitics of Middle Earth. Good, bad, or indifferent...that's what he's making. Since The Lord of the Rings got made into film first, this was the only way they could make The Hobbit now without it seeming as inconsequential piffle in comparison (although there's still that danger if they quality of this new trilogy doesn't deliver).
Anyway...Legolas almost certainly is involved in the events of The Hobbit even if his character is not mentioned by name. Not only is it not a stretch to include him, his complete absence from the story would be remarkable given that he's (a) immortal and (b) the King's son.
If Radagast's role were merely a cameo then I too would be concerned, but all indications point to Radagast being an integral part of the story. Which, if you feel it necessary to include him, then that would be the only proper way to do it.
Galadriel's role has been beefed up for the same reason Radagast is in the movie..because of the White Council. Again...large focus on the forces at work outside of Bilbo, Gandalf (occassionally) Thorin, and Co. The Lord of the Rings trilogy left Frodo and the ring for large stretches of time...sometimes 20 to 30 minutes. I'm not concerned about losing focus of the various story threads. There are very few films with parallel story lines that do it better than The Two Towers and The Return of the King.
Furthermore without Galadriel and the addition of new character Tauriel, there would not be any noteworthy female characters in The Hobbit. Even with this expansion...it's possible that after 6 films in Middle Earth there will not be a single scene with two females talking to each other. Any extensions with female characters that could be folded integrally into the story would be welcome...and somewhat necessary.
Not having seen any of the films, I have no way of knowing if Peter's deviations work or not, but they all logically flow from what he's trying to accomplish, at least. I'd be more concerned if some of his decisions run counter to the goal of making grand fantasy epics in the mold of The Lord of the Rings.
|
|
|
Bombadil
Gondolin
Nov 1 2012, 9:02am
Post #5 of 26
(905 views)
Shortcut
|
If you are trying establish the One is all Powerful?
Yet it had Nooo Power over TB&Goldberry.
If you are trying to establish while wearing the One?
One is invisable.
Yet...Tommy could see Frodo while wearing it?
Trees that move and are alive with Bad..or Good intentions?
Would have taken Out all the Surprize of Ents & later Hurons.
Visiting the BarrowDowns and almost getting killed off
by Barrowrights dimishess..zzz the Threat of the Nazgul..in hot
Pursuit?
Tolkien said himself..
He wanted the 4 to have "an Adventure" before getting to Bree.
and I feel "In the OLDForest" is much of a
Stand Alone Movie
UN to itself...?
Therefore cut
for Pacing of
the much larger Quest.
(When in Doubt..Consult your Books)
dodo BadassBomby
|
|
|
NottaSackville
Doriath
Nov 1 2012, 10:49am
Post #7 of 26
(833 views)
Shortcut
|
|
And the Grey Company shows up at the Battle of Six Armies //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
 Happiness: money matters, but less than we think and not in the way that we think. Family is important and so are friends, while envy is toxic -- and so is excessive thinking. Beaches are optional. Trust is not. Neither is gratitude. - The Geography of Bliss by Eric Weiner as summarized by Lily Fairbairn. And a bit of the Hobbit reading thrown in never hurts. - NottaSackville
|
|
|
Elenorflower
Mithlond
Nov 1 2012, 2:36pm
Post #9 of 26
(730 views)
Shortcut
|
I would love to get even a hint of them passing by the Barrow Downs.
|
|
|
elevorn
Menegroth
Nov 1 2012, 2:51pm
Post #10 of 26
(709 views)
Shortcut
|
But I didn't really like Bombadil, just my opinion. i can appreciate his place in the story, but the silly rhyming songs I find clumsy and silly. As I have grown older I do have more of an appreciation for him, but still he is a nod to the bedtime stories Tolkien told his children, not really a huge character in my mind. I'm in the minority on this I know and I'm fine with that. I do not hate him, I appreciate him as a Tolkien invention and one who saves Frodo and company from the wights.
Rhadagast to me works in the Hobbit, they are in his backyard after all, and he is a light enough character to work in the story.
The choice for Rhadagast may have also come from the fact that Christopher Lee is not capable of doing lots of work at his age, and a replacement for Saruman would be a terribly disrespectful thing to do to the fans and to the work of Lee, who I think is one of the best villain actors ever. Just a theory.
"clever hobbits to climb so high!"
Check out my writing www.jdstudios.wordpress.com
|
|
|
Ardamírë
Doriath
Nov 1 2012, 3:18pm
Post #11 of 26
(705 views)
Shortcut
|
Some have speculated that the destruction of Dol Guldor from the end of the Third Age will be moved forward here to the end of The Hobbit. Perhaps even Galadriel will throw down it's walls as she does in the book. We shall see!
"...and his first memory of Middle-earth was the green stone above her breast as she sang above his cradle while Gondolin was still in flower." -Unfinished Tales
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Elvenhome
Nov 1 2012, 3:36pm
Post #12 of 26
(713 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Tolkien never indicated that Radagast wasn't at Dol Guldur
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The Brown Wizard is at least mentioned in the book and he is hypothetically also part of the White Council. Radagast dwells near Mirkwood, so it only makes sense that he had some role to play in the events that led to to the Council driving the Necromancer out of Mirkwood.
'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring
|
|
|
Sinister71
Dor-Lomin
Nov 1 2012, 4:15pm
Post #13 of 26
(713 views)
Shortcut
|
|
well since I usually complain about Peter Jackson's choices
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Radagast... I have no problem with, other than the bird crap on the side of his face which is gross(IMO). I think with the group traveling this close to Rhosgobel it makes sense to include him and maybe possibly tie in the moth from FOTR as well. No big deal there it might also explain what Gandalf was doing "looking ahead" when the dwarves were at Trollshaws without him with possibly Radagast giving him reason to "look behind". The only thing I do NOT like about that situation is the fact they are connecting the trolls with Sauron and changing the reason they came out of the mountains to be in league with some master plan of Sauron's. But at least they are making him a member of the White council which I find interesting, hopefully they will also include Cirdan the shipwright, and it would be a cool nod to add Glorfindel and Celeborn all maybe just non speaking roles but I think its been confirmed that its just the players we have already seen
Legolas... I really have no problem with a Legolas cameo, but when it was obvious it was more than that, I think it went wrong(opinion). Legolas wasn't known by name OR his deeds during the time of the Hobbit. Although it does make sense that he would be involved in some way, since he is thousands of years old and is Thranduil's son... Since Tolkien wrote nothing of him, what he does remains a mystery at this point. I think a 5 minute cameo without him interacting too much with characters from the book material with maybe one or two lines only and then he's gone would have been perfect. but that only my opinion. As long as we don't get anymore crap like shield surfing and him being invincible his inclusion "might" be alright. Hopefully he doesn't interact with Gloin or the dwarves too much I think they would have remembered him if they had dealt with him before.
Galadiel and Saruman I have no problem with. I actually have said many times I like the DolGuldur subplot. Again what I don't like is the whole playing up the necromancer as Sauron part. THAT could be done very subtly so that when you watch FOTR and see the prologue you understand and it leaves things the way they should be IMO. But back on track... Since they are not in the book and this whole subplot will basically be made up by Peter Jackson we have no clue what their role will be or what will happen. What I have seen so far of Galadriel hasn't been bad and seems to fit with Peter Jackson's LOTR. Saruman we have yet to really see anything of but I hear they do have a stand in for Lee to do scenes that he may not be physically able to do.
As far as Tom Bombadil I can see why they left him out of LOTR since I believe he would have slowed the pace down and threw things off balance. While I agree it would have been interesting to see. It just wasn't right for the films at that time. I like the fact some of his lines were given to treebeard though. Bombadil making an appearance in the Hobbit I highly doubt he will, but there might be a mention of him by Radagast or even better yet since Radagast is supposed to be kind of quirky using other lines from Bombadil and having the brown wizard speak them. I can live with that as long as they don't just rehash Treebeards dialogue, like they have rehashed some of Gollum's dialogue from TTT and putting it in Riddles in the dark (we show Hobbit safe path thru the dark/marsh)
The only cameos I am unsure of that are returning characters is the whole Old Bilbo/ Frodo tie in.
Where I think the Hobbit cameos has gotten out of hand is people like Colbert, or any other celebrities being thrown in costume on the fly and being added to the films.... I think THAT type of stuff is a horrible idea but as far as the pacing I think they will work it all out the best they can and make it work. Hopefully the non-canon material wont drag the stuff that Tolkien wrote down. Since IMO that was the weakest parts of Peter Jackson's LOTR. When Jackson stuck to what Tolkien wrote the films were fantastic bordering on greatness but when he (IMO) inserted his own made up situations and dialogue the films were at their weakest. This time around there is A LOT more made up content or changed material that has to work with the material straight from the book. That is what I hope they can pull off. which I'm starting to have a bit of faith the movies will be good. Not as good as if they had stayed truer to Tolkien (IMO) but good none the less.Definitely NOT Tolkien's Hobbit but I'm sure it will be an entertaining interpretation (not adaptation) of it.
|
|
|
Sinister71
Dor-Lomin
Nov 1 2012, 4:18pm
Post #14 of 26
(689 views)
Shortcut
|
|
My only complaint with that is she is doing it too early if done in the events of the Hobbit
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Although since Dol Guldur isn't shown or mentioned in LOTR films they might be able to get away with it. I don't like it  but they can certainly make it work for the films
|
|
|
Ardamírë
Doriath
Nov 1 2012, 4:37pm
Post #15 of 26
(667 views)
Shortcut
|
Dol Guldor isn't in the LOTR movies, nor is it even mentioned. So I have no qualms with Galadriel destroying it in these new films. Since they are doing the White Council subplot, I'd rather see a proper climax with the complete annihilation of Dol Guldor rather than not just because it's not following the timeline. It ultimately won't create any continuity issues with the existing films, so I'm down with it.
"...and his first memory of Middle-earth was the green stone above her breast as she sang above his cradle while Gondolin was still in flower." -Unfinished Tales
|
|
|
Sinister71
Dor-Lomin
Nov 1 2012, 4:40pm
Post #16 of 26
(652 views)
Shortcut
|
Yet another reason to keep the films TOTALLY separate from the books.
|
|
|
There&ThereAgain
Nargothrond
Nov 1 2012, 7:58pm
Post #17 of 26
(632 views)
Shortcut
|
He is an actor, comedian and writer, certainly not just a "celebrity."
Are people getting upset that recognizable comedians, Stephen Fry, Billy Connolly and Barry Humphries are also in The Hobbit?
I personally love that PJ is filling out roles with comedic actors as The Hobbit is a funny story.
If anything, I'm sure Colbert is just a laketown member or a background dwarf... 
"The world is indeed full of peril, and in it there are many dark places; but still there is much that is fair; and though in all lands love is now mingled with grief, it grows perhaps the greater."-J.R.R. Tolkien
"Thanks for the money!" -George Lucas
|
|
|
Sam20
Menegroth
Nov 1 2012, 8:28pm
Post #18 of 26
(629 views)
Shortcut
|
My view is that PJ is trying to amend for his mistake of not showing Radagast in FOTR. What else could it be? They obviously thought at that time that the Radagast's moment in LOTR wasn't an important one and could be avoided.
I think that it would have been an interesting addition to the film. A scene with Gandalf and Radagast wouldn't have costed that much while adding but few minutes and could have served as an opportunity to show that there has been more than two Wizards sent to Middle-Earth. Seeing that he'll be part of The Hobbit adaptation now doesn't make lots of sense to me. I mean the character doesn't belong to the storyline of the book... I will not hide that the fact that he is missing from the LOTR movies which is there that he plays a role known to us and instead adding it to The Hobbit adaptations doesn't help me appreciate the idea.
|
|
|
Sinister71
Dor-Lomin
Nov 1 2012, 8:40pm
Post #19 of 26
(601 views)
Shortcut
|
I have no issue with comedians being put in films like this. Those comedians you mentioned though were cast in the roles, which means they probably auditioned and were not just handed a role for being on set. Where my problem with him being added into the film is the fact he was on set, they know he is a huge Tolkien fan, and just on a whim said hey lets throw him in a scene. THAT's my problem with it. I truly do hope he is just nameless dwarf # 317 or Laketown guy #12 with no speaking role what so ever
(This post was edited by sinister71 on Nov 1 2012, 8:47pm)
|
|
|
Sinister71
Dor-Lomin
Nov 1 2012, 8:43pm
Post #20 of 26
(597 views)
Shortcut
|
take a brief second to show Radagast and the moth in some way. So that after seeing the Hobbit when you go back and watch FOTR, even though Radagast isn't physically there, when you see the moth you will think of him. Or at least that's what I see them trying to do in my mind
|
|
|
There&ThereAgain
Nargothrond
Nov 1 2012, 9:00pm
Post #21 of 26
(580 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm trying to think if there were any big-name cameos in the original trilogy, but all the cameos were either crew or cast and crew family members (ie. Elijah Wood's sister).
"The world is indeed full of peril, and in it there are many dark places; but still there is much that is fair; and though in all lands love is now mingled with grief, it grows perhaps the greater."-J.R.R. Tolkien
"Thanks for the money!" -George Lucas
|
|
|
Sinister71
Dor-Lomin
Nov 1 2012, 9:25pm
Post #22 of 26
(577 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Actually I liked the fact they used SO much cast and crew in unspeaking roles throughout the films
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
its something that would have made it a much more enjoyable experience while working on the film IMO.
Now speaking roles I think they should leave to the professionals and people who actually audition for the roles
(This post was edited by sinister71 on Nov 1 2012, 9:26pm)
|
|
|
There&ThereAgain
Nargothrond
Nov 1 2012, 9:58pm
Post #23 of 26
(558 views)
Shortcut
|
he got to grunt and growl and yell a lot in his LOTR cameos.
Now that would be fun!
"The world is indeed full of peril, and in it there are many dark places; but still there is much that is fair; and though in all lands love is now mingled with grief, it grows perhaps the greater."-J.R.R. Tolkien
"Thanks for the money!" -George Lucas
|
|
|
Fardragon
Nargothrond
Nov 2 2012, 8:28am
Post #24 of 26
(499 views)
Shortcut
|
are also talented serious actors.
A Far Dragon is the best kind...
|
|
|
irodino
Nevrast
Nov 2 2012, 5:18pm
Post #25 of 26
(466 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The reason is quite obvious isn't it?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
LOTR : A complex, detail rich 1000 page epic story.
Hobbit : A simple tale for children, quite short too.
But both are given about the same running time! Isn't it obvious that the stuff that would be cut from the first because of time constrains would be gladly included in the latter even if the thing was irrelevant or, in fact, invented? I mean that other version of Hobbit was shot in like an hour? This one will have over nine! So not only Radagast is in but also Tauriel or what's her name, and multiple invented orc baddies, and for all we know a few sled-pulling jackrabbits that may have more screen time than Bard the Bowman and an equally pivotal and unexpected role in the grand scheme of things.
"The past tempts us, the present confuses us, and the future frightens us. And our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that terrible in-between."
|
|
|
|
|
A Few reasons Bomby was Cut?
[
1
