Quote:
Originally Posted by Galin
Well I don't want to compare stomach strengths (not that I could in any event), but if the film consistently portrays Radagast trying to catch a rabbit sled with an infant in his arms, I might better understand why he leaves some [IMO] significant bird droppings on his head.
|
Radagast with a baby? I suppose if in twenty years' time I have enough money to do a re-imagining of The Hobbit that would
really upset people then I'm going to include that.
Quote:
Thanks. The attempted linguistic analysis was more due to Legolas' wondering about the name, not to try and prove Jackson had made some kind of blunder with respect to the books.
I don't find a tree house, or that it might not seem to be part of a larger village, necessarily objectionable for a film. Generally speaking anyway. But that said, I haven't seen this film yet, although I have seen images of Radagast, and read people chatting about how over the top he is as a character...
... some people anyway. And since I find Jackson's treatment quite often to be over the top for my tastes...
|
Take a look at the John Howe concept art, it doesn't look very much different in the film itself so you will get a good idea without having to go to the cinema. I'd say it's less a 'tree house' and more a house built around a tree.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nogrod
I mean you can be immersed with nature and turn into a hermit with idiosyncratic stuff, sure, and Tolkien's portrayal of Radagast gives every license to that reading of him as a character, but as one of the Maiar it is hard for me to see him as what PJ and his team made him; but needing someone to be laughed at - like Gimli in the LotR.
|
I certainly didn't laugh at him, I can say that. I thought he was quite
bonkers, but he wasn't comic to me. I wonder who finds him funny here?