The Hobbit (Post-release)

[CelticRuins]

*head desk*

Again, you have to use a schmidgen of imagination and partial knowledge from the books here. But whatever. The moth took the place of Radagast in FotR. Radagast always told Gandalf he would send messengers if he needed help. Gwaihir being his main messenger.

The Moth - Lord of the Rings Wiki

And yes, there is a sign, as Radagast is the one who sent Gwaihir to Gandalf atop Orthanc. The Moth took his place so they didn't have to fully flesh out another character.

In The Fellowship of the Ring, Radagast was unwittingly used by Saruman to lure Gandalf to his tower of Orthanc, where Gandalf was captured. However, Radagast also unwittingly helped rescue him by sending Gwaihir the Eagle to Orthanc with news of the movements of Sauron's forces. When Gwaihir saw that Gandalf was imprisoned on the top of the tower he carried him off to safety before Saruman realized he was gone.

 

[Bryancd]

If it's not on screen, it's not in the movie. You can't defend the movie's effectiveness with things that are not in it. And I lived the movie! You aren't making the care for the character as portrayed in the movie. And did I mention I loved the movie?!

 

[Too Much Garlic]

Yup, definitely not in the movie. There was no hint or nudge or mention of that event with the moth heralding the coming of the eagles being tied to the character of the brown wizard in any of the three instances that is shown in these movies. None. What's in the books is one thing, what's in the movies, is quite another.

 

[Bryancd]

And to suggest you lack for imagination if you fail to glean this from the films, well that's a pretty obtuse fan argument and doesn't help make the story more accessible.

 

[EyeofSauron]

again, youre not getting it.
you have to think of the random movie goer, not the well read lotr enthusiast. so if granny goes to the cinema with her 3 grand children to see the hobbit, how could they, having never read the hobbit, possibly get that the moth was sent by radagast? for all they know, gandalf saw a butterfly, talked to it to get the eagles.
Youre saying proof of radagast is the moth atop of orthanc. so, is there any reference to that IN THE MOVIE? no there isnt. for every casual viewer, there is a moth flying around, and gandalf talks to it. thats all you see, and radagast isnt mentioned IN THE MOVIE.

Hell, even me who knows the books back and forth, didnt make the connection between the moths and radagast when watching the movies. because there was no indication for it IN THE MOVIE.
whatever peter jackson said in some documentaries, or whatever the books say doesnt matter. it only matters what you see in the film, if youre watching the film.

you can not make the assumption, that just because you made the connection, that everyone does, or that it is 100% right.

 

[Kit Rae]

No indication or connection in the book either. I think someone pointed it out on the previous page, but the eagles were NOT sent by Radagast in The Hobbit book. They come to the rescue simply because they heard the commotion in the forest and the Lord of the Eagles wanted to see what was about. Radagast had nothing to do with it. If fact he is only named once in the book that I recall, when Gandalf mentions him to Beorn.

In FOTR, I assumed that Gandalf was simply given the role of Radagast by having him ask a moth to go get Gwaihir to rescue him, one of several times Gandalf talks to animals. He simply did the same thing in The Hobbit film.

 

[Dexter2999]

This is a problem I have seen and experienced first hand during the times I took a swipe at screenwriting. If there is something that you want to convey, IT HAS TO BE ON THE PAGE. All too often a writer can put something down on the page and the idea makes perfect sense to them because of their knowledge of the situation or character. But when you hand off that story to someone without that knowledge, they only have what is on the page to go from. So there can be holes in the logic or plot.

In the case of the movie, if it isn't on the page then it isn't on the screen. The first rule of movies is "Show, don't tell."

I will put in an allowance for a director to have inside jokes, homages, and whatnot by putting hints and clues to extraneous information. And if you are "in" on the gag great, but the story is what it is otherwise standing without getting the benefit of watching the movie while listening to the commentary.

 

[moonlightdrive2]

I'm glad I read some criticism about The Hobbit before seeing it because it lowered my expectations going in. The movie ended up totally exceeding my expectations and I absolutely loved it. I mean I REALLY loved it !!!

I actually enjoyed a few of the parts that some folks complained about being too slow and long, such as the introduction of the dwarves at Bilbo’s home. I feel that you need character development and to get to know the characters so you care about what happens to them. Plus it was entertaining dialogue and character interaction.

I do think the CGI on Azog (the Orc chieftain) was a bit...well...CGI looking. I pray that they get Smog right because it would be disastrous if he ends up looking like a video game character.

Also, I'll never understand why movie makers like to add stupid, humorous lines in the middle of battles or life threatening situations, which totally takes away from the tension and believability of the scene. There was some of that going on in the LOTR movies too (e.g., Legolas and Gimli at Helm’s Deep, etc.). I could understand if it's done in a kid's movie. (Spoiler coming) For The Hobbit, I'm specifically talking about when the Goblin King's stomach get's sliced open and he makes a goofy, humorous comment about it right before he dies - something like "that'll do it". This kind of thing really bugs me - am I the only one who feels this way? How does someone as smart as Peter Jackson let this line stay?

Dave

 

[Too Much Garlic]

Funny... I'm usually very vocal against cgi for the most part being easy to spot. Either I wasn't in my corner when I saw the movie, or it really is as good as I remember it, but for once, I felt that the cgi was really good and couldn't distinguish it from practical effects and miniatures - of course, later hearing they used less miniatures got me thinking again about how I perceived the film. I just, for once, didn't feel distracted by the cgi and thought it was the best I have seen where I couldn't really tell the difference.

 

[rodneyfaile]

Anyone else really dig Bilbo's robe?

 

[Kerr Avon]

YES! I saw that and I thought "damn, that'd be nice to wear around the house on a cold morning"

 

[CTF]

...they used less miniatures...

Now, that's an understatement!

 

[CTF]

Again, you have to use a schmidgen of imagination and partial knowledge from the books here.

No.

If it's not on screen, it's not in the movie. You can't defend the movie's effectiveness with things that are not in it.

What Bryan said.

 

[Clutch]

How did the goblin king catch up to them after they had been running for 10 miles?

 

[Kerr Avon]

No.

What Bryan said.

Have to agree. It's like the CrapTrek comics that try to explain away all the problems with the JJ Crapfest. Doesn't matter. Didn't happen on screen, it doesn't count.

 

[Bryancd]

And considering he fell down off his throne platform and they seemed to be trying to run up and out! Pretty spry for a fat guy.

 

[Kerr Avon]

A wizard did it?

 

[Bryancd]

A wizard did it?

He whispered to a moth....

 

[CelticRuins]

Such one track minds.

I'll end my side of the debate by only stating that yes you can have nods to fans and things that weren't physically ON SCREEN. Just because it wasn't IN THE SCRIPT OR ON THE SCREEN, doesn't mean it wasn't meant to portray something. I'm not the only one who believes in this theory. In fact right after FotR came out, I remember old message boards blowing up about who and what the moth signified, and many related it back to Radagast. Like moving Old Man Willow to Fangorn instead of near Tom Bombadil, and giving Bombadil's lines to Treebeard, the place of Radagast was replaced with a moth, and in a way the abilities of Radagast (such as talking to animals), was transferred to Gandalf.


Moving on.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

There is also a thing as too much interpretation. Had a class mate once argue that all the characters in Hamlet was all Hamlet and he was just projecting himself out into this large tale because his life was too dull, so he had to make things up.

Sometimes a moth is just a moth.

Or... there is no spoon.