[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

And, had Jackson not been so stupid as to excise Tom Bombadil from the original films, then the Radagast we get in The Hobbit might not have been so jarring to some viewers.

I had Bombadil in mind too, from something Galdor said at The Council of Elrond:

'I know little of Iarwain save the name,' said Galdor; 'but Glorfindel, I think, is right. Power to defy our Enemy is not in him, unless such power is in the earth itself. And yet we see that Sauron can torture and destroy the very hills....'

So you might be on to something about Radagast filling in for Bombadil being cut from LOTR. And having Radagast also represent the "wild spirit" of the land itself.

Which goes back to what Boro says about Jackson making use of archetypes. Actually, given that Radagast is such a slippery character for even very keen readers to get a handle on, is it any wonder Jackson has gone back to an archetype?

Now that's interesting. There is very little about Radagast, for sure. His meeting with Gandalf we can tell he's definitely disturbed by carrying the news about the Nazgul:

"I have an urgent errand," he said. "My news is evil." Then he looked about him, as if the hedges might have ears. "Nazgul," he whispered..."~ibid

Nervous? Anxious? Whatever it is, he's bothered the message he has to give to Gandalf.

"Then you must go now,...I myself shall turn back at once." And with that he mounted and would have ridden straight off.
...
"I will do that," he said, and rode off as if the Nine were after him."~ibid

Radagast is going to race right off (and we assume perhaps back to Rhosgobel when he says he shall "turn back at once"). Gandalf tells him to alert his friends, and he again races off as if the "Nine were after him." This might not tell much, other than Radagast is frightened of the Nazgul, and thus he's probably frightened of Sauron's power as well. Still being a good-intentioned person, and his love for his bird friends is enough to get him to listen to Gandalf, but he doesn't have much courage.

The other things that can be picked up about Radagast comes from Gandalf and Saruman. You can often learn things about a character from what other characters say about him/her. The problem is, what other characters say must be measured with some perspective and the biases of the character "reporting."

First, Gandalf:

"Radagast is, of course, a worthy wizard, a master of shapes and changes of hue; and he has much lore of herbs and beasts, and birds are especially his friend."

I don't doubt Gandalf's words here, because he's an honest and reliable character for the reader to glean information from. However, we also know his extreme humility, he often underestimates his own power, and in doing so he's able to keep his own pride and ego in check. Is it possible, Gandalf just didn't want to bad-mouth someone he would view as a friend, a colleague? I think so. He would be speaking true about Radagast's expertise and knowledge, but Gandalf isn't someone who scoffs at, mocks, or trashes the abilities of other characters, especially if he views them as a friend.

Saruman, is the exact opposite:

Radagast the Brown!" laughed Saruman, and he no longer concealed his scorn. "Radagast the Bird-tamer! Radagast the Simple! Radagast the Fool! Yet he has just the wit to play the part that I set him."

Saruman is of course, a liar and a traitor, and he rarely hides his disdain for Gandalf's "toys"...he mocks Gandalf for smoking pipe-weed, he mocks Gandalf's fondness of the Shire and hobbits. He mocks Radagast's worthiness as a wizard. (It just so happens that nearly everything Saruman mocks comes back to bite him in the end ).

Still, there is probably truth to Saruman's scorn for Radagast here. Saruman played him, there's no other way around it, he deceived Radagast and got him to send Gandalf to Orthanc, completely unawares of Saruman's treachery. The weak thread Saruman left was not anticipating Gandalf would tell Radagast to alert his friends, and thus not planning for the fooled Radagast still being an honest wizard. An honest wizard he is, but "a Fool" he might be too...there's no reason there can't be a bit of truth to how both Gandalf and Saruman describe Radagast.

I think with the characterization in the films, most seem to be strictly looking at Gandalf's words and determining Jackson got it so obviously wrong, because Radagast was a "worthy wizard." But as slight as the evidence is, this overlooks the "other half," that comes from Saruman. And simply because he's turned completely evil, does not mean he is automatically wrong.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I have just read the Radagast section of the Medwed chapter of Rateliff's Mr Baggins. It does highlight the problems with the character and so perhaps explain why there are such differing opinions though different intdrpretations of failure is also a factor. He points out that Radagast is a rare loose end and that Tolkien in retrospect felt he hadn't failed exactly more that Gandalf had transcended his mission. Anyway well worth a read but which bit of writing has precedence will no doubt lead to the mighty canonicity thread that I still am awed by after all these years.

In Rateliff's review of the movie, he notes the humor in having Radagast just drop out of the film and disappear, as he does in LOTR. Although, I think we'll be seeing more Radagast in the other films, so I am interested to see what they do with him...or how they explain what winds up happening to Radagast. Even if it is personally funny and fitting to just have him disappear completely.