Sure, Tolkien did modify his early statements. But still, Radagast wasnt the big success.
Right, I actually like the way Radagast was shown, not all powerful and mighty, just a guy who loved nature- and did help out vs The Enemy .
I think that’s more or less how they portrayed all the benevolent super powerful characters like Gandalf, Galadriel, etc). Like they helped out and could do the occasional magic trick when needed. But you don’t see Gandalf blasting a 1000 yard hole in the battle lines of Morder with his staff. Which I think is more or less even trying to use great power to do good would have unintended and corrupting consequences.
Please do away with the hyper-feminized, ever-crying hobbits. And Peter Jackson’s complete ignorance of basic physics.
What are you talking about? Rosie Cotton only got like ten seconds of screen time. And speaking as a physicist, that’s exactly how a giant monster of flame and shadow would work.
Yeah, I don’t see what’s wrong with the emotional culture of hobbits as per canon. Tolkien deliberately wrote hobbits as more “down to earth” (in more ways than one) than other Middle-earth peoples, and emotional candor is part of that.
Men of the high lineages have this warrior/leader culture that valorizes stoicism. Elves, being immortal, have a long perspective that gives them an “adults in the room” vibe: they don’t get upset. Dwarves kind of fetishize toughness in all respects.
But Hobbits are written as simpler, more mercurial people, with moods more easily stirred but more superficial. They have a buried core of staunch courage, but they don’t access it much in ordinary life. They’re content to focus on their small enjoyments and small quarrels, deeply connected with nature but not thinking deeply about it, or about other big-picture stuff.
Which is why other Peoples tend to consider hobbits not so much “feminized” as “childish” (a stereotype reinforced by their small stature). It takes a lot of hard scary Big World experience to make hobbits into tough adventurers and warriors. Which is why the four hobbits in the Fellowship screw up a lot and get upset a lot. So would any of us, for that matter: Nazgul and goblins and trolls, oh my.
A wish-fulfillment retcon of Hobbits as pre-toughened video-game-style Marvel heroes would be boring.
Really good summary.
There are lots of elements of Tolkien’s world that would be great to see more of (e.g. what about the blue wizards?)—if someone could do them justice.
The best-case scenario for this “Hunt for Gollum” movie is that it would fall into that category. But my expectations are not that high.
The hobbits are crying all the time in the movies. They essentially behave more like women than men, which can be explained by the female writers. They aren’t so emotionally incontinent in the books. And Peter Jackson’s physics challenges are legendary in all his movies. They aren’t as bad in LOTR as The Hobbit, but still pretty bad. The Rohirrim charges are just one example. The Helm’s Deep battle is full of absurdities.
They’re crying a lot because they’re going through incredibly stressful situations. In what ways do they behave more like women than men?
Same question, plus: they do weep quite a bit in the books.
Pretty certain the hobbits cry less in the films than they do in the books. I don’t think there’s a single instance of them crying in the films that isn’t taken straight from the books, and a lot of it is cut out.
A lot of holding hands, embracing, laughing and especially singing for joy is also cut out- not just from the hobbits either.
Methinks Prof. Tolkien had a different view of what is ‘feminized’ behaviour than you believe.
Gandalf:
I will not say do not weep, for not all tears are an evil.
Never mind.
Right there with you.
Uh-huh. Tell me you’ve never read any Homeric epic, without telling me you’ve never read any Homeric epic. 
Etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum. (And it’s not like Hellenic culture was noticeably feminist or gender-egalitarian, either.)
See, you’re coming at this from a naively post-Victorian Anglophone culture perspective which conventionally views weeping as “female-coded”, and forbidden to mature males. Tolkien, being far more knowledgeable about ancient cultures and their epic literatures, wrote his neo-saga much more realistically in terms of emotional expression. (Tolkien’s tone is still somewhat constrained by the conventional prudishness of his era—-an actual saga author would probably have been a lot more explicit about hobbits’ sexual fecundity, for example! —-but much less constrained than how the naively sexist retconners of today would write it.)
TL;DR: In actual epic literature, brave men cry a LOT. Hobbit emotional levels as written by Tolkien and portrayed in the movies are totally within normal parameters for male emotional expression.
I know, right? All fighting all the time, that’s my idea of a manly saga. Feelings, pfui!
Heh, as my above Homer quotes illustrate, in the quintessential manly sagas of western culture, it’s all fighting AND crying all the time.
But yeah, I don’t think we need new emotionally repressed versions of hobbits just because it makes some male viewers feel a bit insecure to see them cry onscreen. Tolkien wasn’t afraid to write hobbits crying, and I think he knew what he was doing.
Now THAT I’d watch!
“Oh the leaves are falling, the flowers are wilting, and the rivers are all going Republican. O Ramar, Ramar, ride quickly on your golden unicycle and warn the nymphs and drag queens! Ah, now who shall gather lichee nuts and make hoopla under the topiaries? Who will trim my unicorns? See, even now the cows laugh, Alas, alas.” Chorus: “We are the chorus and we agree. We agree, we agree, we agree.”
I was reciting this to myself the other day. I think msybe RAMAR could be spelled in the NYT Spelling Bee.
Shantih Billerica!