[ SECRET POST #2538 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2538 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.



__________________________________________________


11.


__________________________________________________



12.









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 079 secrets from Secret Submission Post #363.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[dreemyweird]

I really don't get why people complain that the movies are "silly". Of course they are not as serious as the LoTR ones; the source book has got so many intentionally goofy and funny moments! I was a small child when I read it for the first time, and even then it did not strike me as particularly serious. The whole point was to write an awesomesauce adventure story with a smashing setting and some interesting psychological/moral dynamics, a bit like Kidnapped.

Although I do think that three hours of Radagast haring around would kind of defeat the whole "awesome adventure with a plot" point, it is not the silliness that's the issue here.

[(Anonymous)]

I think, personally, it's a matter of the silliness not being done well, and a really rough combination of "serious" and kiddish that PJ just didn't iron out. He's pushing kid humor in a violent PG13 movie. Not that the atmosphere of the book should've been cut, it just should've been adapted better, imo, and it just didn't work for me. And I like the book well enough. But in the movie series, I get wanting to balance it with the depth of the LOTR movies. Still, I think both Hobbit movies have overall been kinda garbage... with humor not being the worst of their problems.

on another note: ugh, Radagast..

[dreemyweird]

I can understand that! It's just a problem of overall quality, really. If you have issues with the films not because of silliness per se but because of how it was introduced, then I doubt they would have appeared better without it.

(that being said, IDK. I liked the films a lot. Not nearly as much as the book, but I felt like all the necessary elements were there. Eh, different strokes)

[(Anonymous)]

As a lifelong fan of The Hobbit, I would say that it's because the movie isn't "silly" in the same way the book is "silly." The movie takes a very different approach to humor. (Granted, I didn't bother to watch the whole movie because the parts I did see were so obnoxious.)

The movie's humor reminded me of kids movies like Elf, the new Grinch movie, etc. It's a style of humor that I personally really fucking hate, and I hated it even when I was a kid and it started becoming the norm for kids' films. Lots of gross-out humor (guy covered in birdshit), lol so random crap, etc.

The book's humor is more like kid's films like The Land Before Time, Prince of Egypt, or The Beauty and the Beast (or books like the Narnia series or The Wind in the Willows). Those films/books are undoubtedly silly and funny and kid-friendly, but a lot of the humor is in contrast to the overall serious tone.

[dreemyweird]

Actually, I think I agree. This is definitely a part of the reason why I liked the book better than the films.

But again, it's important to note that the problem does not lie in the fact that the film is silly, it is due to the nature of its silliness (low, gross-out humour).

[(Anonymous)]

I didn't see Radagast's appearance as gross-out humor, I thought it was perfectly related to his character. He's a weird little man who cares more for creatures than humans, of course he doesn't prioritize cleanliness.

[(Anonymous)]

da

Really? He is covered in bird shit, and every scene he's in he seems like he belongs in some kids' muppet-type show. I don't know, it definitely seemed like gross-out humor to me, too, combined with childish slapstick quirks.

I appreciate the attempt to make him totally different from Gandalf and Saruman, but his over-the-top goofiness was disturbing.

[(Anonymous)]

I have to ask if you've read the Hobbit before.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes. There was no bird-shit-covered Radagast in it.

[(Anonymous)]

You are so outraged about this. It's funny. It's just a fantasy movie. Why so serious?

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt

Because every time his bird crapped face is on screen, I have to look away in disgust, which takes away from quality Gandalf time. And since I don't want to miss a second of Gandalf's awesomeness, he needs to clean up or ship out.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm more curious on why you're so defensive about it. And enjoyed Radagast's bird shit.

[(Anonymous)]

Thank you for justifying to me why I've been avoiding this series of films like the plague. What a travesty.