The Bible, 2013 - Episode 3

Wow.  Episode #3 is just flat out brutal.  

I forced myself to desensitize to violence because I didn't know what to expect in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.  I watch Passion of the Christ almost every year.  I can handle violence.  The Bible, ep. 3 borders on the amount of brutality I can't handle.

I'm watching the episode as I write this so that I don't miss any little detail.

Don't get me wrong, The Bible episode 3 is very well made, very exciting, and accurate to the Bible.  I still love it.  I just want those of you who may be a little squeamish to brutality in media to be aware of things that might be difficult for you to watch.  The fact that I'm having some trouble watching it without covering my eyes indicates that people who have trouble watching Narnia or Lord of the Rings would have trouble watching this episode.

This episode covers Nebuchadnezzar's attack of Jerusalem, Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, the Birth of Jesus, and the Beginning of Jesus' earthly ministry.  And thus, a lot of blood is spilled between the opening of the show and the end credits.  

The Babylonian army literally massacre everyone in Jerusalem.  Well, except for Daniel and his buddies, that is.  Nebuchadnezzar has King Zedekiah's son's slaughtered moments before personally poking out King Zedekiah's eyes (we see this happening).  Later, we see a now blind former King Zedekiah being led into exile, and we are not spared from seeing the gory sockets where his eyes used to be.  Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego are, of course, thrown into the fiery furnace, but are not hurt because the Lord shows up and protects them.  Nebuchadnezzar, on the other hand, reaches into the fire himself and is burned.  After Daniel's episode in the lion's Den, two other guys are thrown in, and we hear them screaming off camera as, we assume, they are devoured by the lions.  

400 plus years later, Roman soldiers sack the city of Nazareth, including breaking in on a Shabbat meeting, and randomly selecting prisoners.  King Herod stabs a man in the neck, and squeezes blood from the wound with his hands.  Babies are slaughtered, but we only see the soldiers take the children away from their parents, and the soldiers wielding swords.  We see a ton of crucified bodies on a hill outside Galilee, some of which are pretty gruesome.  We also see a couple guys being crucified.  Near the end of the episode, we see a soldier swinging a sword toward John the Baptist's neck, but the scene cuts away before we see the actual beheading.  But, we do get to see a silhouette of the soldier lifting John's severed head from the ground.

King Herod is shown with leaches on his back, and we assume he is very ill.  Herod also, in a state of paranoia, has one of his sons strangled to death.

Another thing younger viewers should be aware of is that Satan is portrayed as being really creepy (which he is).  But, this film portrayal may be a little disturbing for younger viewers.

As with the previous two episodes, some of the events have been completely brushed over or squashed to make them all fit into a two hour block of time.  This, unfortunately, meant that some of the accuracy went out the window.  As a filmmaker, I understand why they made some of the choices they made, but if you're an accuracy freak like me, you may be a little disappointed.  

Don't think for a minute that I didn't enjoy episode 3 just because of the critiques and the list of gory, gruesome contents.  I still loved the episode, and the whole show thus far.  And, there are some good things about this episode.

The stories that are told are, more or less, told as accurately to the original text as the filmmakers could get them in the time in which they told the stories.  Some of the details have been squashed together due to time restraints, but they are still the same events as told about in The Bible.

Also, I thought Mary and Joseph's relationship was very sweet.  He compliments her, and protects her from the sacking Romans.  Later, after Gabriel assures him that the baby Mary has conceived is really the Son of God, Joseph bursts through crowds of angry people to save Mary from people who intend to stone her.  After Jesus is born, there's a scene where we see Joseph running through Bethlehem, calling desperately for Mary, juxtaposed with clips of the massacre of the infant boys of Bethlehem.  It turns out to be a dream, but I thought that scene did a really great job of not only showing God's warning to Joseph to flee Bethlehem, but also to show just how much he really loves and cares for her, and for baby Jesus.

And, most importantly, Jesus makes His entrance in this episode.  Everything from His birth to His first encounter with Peter.  

The portrayal of Jesus was my main original concern with the series.  I assumed that because the show was on the History Channel, that they probably wouldn't wan to portray Jesus as being the actual Son of God, since secular media and history buffs don't really like to admit the Bible is real, or that Jesus was really God Incarnate.  However, so far, The Bible series seems to be portraying Jesus correctly, that is as the actual, honest to goodness Son of God, God Incarnate, The "With Us" God, as my Pastor calls Him.  That made me very, very happy.

We'll get to see more of Him next week.

Now, I'm really curious.  Will the remaining 2 episodes be about Jesus' earthly ministry, death, and resurrection?  Or will at least one of the episodes cover the events that occurred after Jesus's ascension into Heaven?  I guess we shall just have to wait and see.  

Hobbitary Commentary - Things We Can Take Away from The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

So, by now you might be wondering, "What Christian morals/messages can we find in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey?"  On the surface, The Hobbit may seem like just another Hollywood action/adventure/fantasy movie.  But, we must also remember that Tolkien, himself, was a Christian (in fact, he was instrumental in bringing C. S. Lewis to Christ).  Therefore, we can safely assume that Tolkien would have put at least something worth while in his work.  Gandalf's fall into the Abyss and eventual return as the White Wizard in The Lord of the Rings is an example of this.  But, what can we take from The Hobbit?  Here are just a few things I found while watching An Unexpected Journey.

9. Things We Can Take Away from The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

God knows more about us than we know about ourselves.  Therefore, if God calls us to do something completely out of our league (or what we think is out of our league), we can be assured that He, first, has given us the capability to do it (even though we didn't know we could), and second, will be with us every step of the way.

This is the lesson we can take from Bilbo Baggins.  We may be dragged out our doors kicking and screaming without our pocket handkerchieves, but we have to trust God that he knows what He's doing with us.  If He drags us out to join an adventure, we have to assume He thinks we're the best person for the job.  In fact, He knows we're the best person for the job, because He made us, and (as stated earlier) He knows us better than we know ourselves.

Also, God may do things to our plans that we do not understand.  Thorin stared [down] at Bilbo at first and said, "He looks more like a grocer than a burglar".  And, Maybe he was right.  But, Gandalf insisted that they bring Bilbo with them.  "You asked me to find the 14th member of this Company, and I have chosen Mr. Baggins[….]  You have to trust me on this."  Translated to English, Non-Tolkien: 

Me: God, you're asking me to do this thing that doesn't make any sense.  How is this going to further my quest?

God: You asked for My help and guidance, and I have chosen to take you down this path.  You just have to trust me.

The only question is, will you do it?  Will you respond like Thorin, "Very well, we'll do it your way."  Or will you ignore God and do it your own way?  That's something to think about as you munch your popcorn for the remaining two hours and three minutes of film time.

So, no, your 2 hours and 49 minutes were not wasted, because there are things you can take away from The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.

The Fellowship vs. An Unexpected Journey

Why do I have a feeling that The Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit movies are going to end up being like the Star Wars episodes?

You start with parts 4, 5,  and 6, and then go back to watch parts 1, 2, and 3.

No wonder the Left Brained population of America are hopelessly confused by us Right Brained fantasy/sci fi people.  (As a side note, being left or right brained is not the same as being politically left or right.  Left brained people are more analytical, and right brained people tend to be more global.  Right brained people are more likely to understand and enjoy fantasy stories like The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings than left brained people).

Anywho...

During my Spring Break, my Dad and I managed to get out of town for a few days.  We knew the hotel room had a DVD player, so we brought some of our favorite movies with us to watch (since I usually don't have time to do this while in school).  And, of course, one of those favorites happens to be...The Fellowship of the Ring.  It took us two days to finish watching the movie.

Of course, I've seen The Fellowship dozens of times before now.  But, with An Unexpected Journey now fresh in my mind, I made some observations about The Fellowship, and more or less about the Lord of the Rings trilogy in general, that I'd never thought of before.  If this is old news to you, I'm sorry.

If LOTR and The Hobbit were restaurants, The Lord of the Rings would be a big, almost multicultural restaurant with several locations across the country (picture Hobbits running Olive Garden, and you've got the general idea).  The Hobbit, on the other hand, would be the Mom and Pop place wedged between the Real Estate office and the Haunted Hotel in the middle of the Downtown "Historic" district of town.  For anyone who has been to Flagstaff, picture Hobbits running Josephine's, and you've got the idea.  The Lord of the Rings restaurant would serve a variety of mass produced foods.  The Hobbit restaurant would serve Grandma's famous home cooked meals.  I was eating dinner while watching The Fellowship, that's why I'm comparing the movies to restaurants.

There's nothing wrong with either restaurant scenario.  Both Olive Garden and Josephine's are good restaurants.  It's more of a feeling than anything.  The Lord of the Rings feels more general and open, whereas The Hobbit feels more homie and personal.

Why?

It's actually quite simple.

Lord of the Rings seems to be more focused on the "big picture", whereas The Hobbit is more focused on an individual piece of the puzzle.

Frodo's adventures really do concern the whole world.  If he doesn't destroy the Ring, the world will be forever enslaved to Sauron, because Sauron is one of those villains who doesn't really need all those slaves, but would rather have miserable slaves then somewhat happy, "free" subjects to rule.  The entire world is literally depending on him to succeed.

Bilbo's adventures are on a much smaller, more personal scale.  The Dwarves' quest really only pertains to them, and to Bilbo since he's kinda stuck with them.  The rest of Middle Earth could really care less if Thorin manages to take back Erebor from Smaug.

The Lord of the Rings jumps between the adventures of Frodo and Sam as they make their way to Mordor, the adventures of Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, and Gandalf, and the various antics and adventures of Merry and Pippin.  But, at all times, no matter which part of the story is being focused on for a given chapter or scene, the thoughts of everyone always, always, always turn toward Frodo and that little piece of round metal, the destruction of which could mean the difference between freedom and slavery, life and death.  Frodo literally has the weight of the entire world on his small, Hobbit shoulders.

The Hobbit focuses solely on the same 13-15 characters at a given time.  Granted, there is the occasional episode where Gandalf goes off on his own quest, Thorin disappears (with the assistance of some Elves), or Bilbo ends up completely alone in Goblin caves.  But, for the most part, the story follows the thirteen Dwarves, the Wizard, and the Hobbit on their quest.  And their quest is a personal one.  The dwarves have been driven from their home in the mountain, and dwarves do not take kindly to being driven from their homes by dragons like Smaug.  This mission has very personal ramifications for the dwarves.  We never really see where Gandalf runs off to, or what the rest of the world thinks of the adventures of Thorin and Co.  The only times this really becomes an issue for any party outside of the Company are when the dwarves are captured by the Goblins, captured (once again) by the Elves, show up in barrels in Laketown, and when everyone eventually gathers for the Battle of 5 Armies.

Now, you may be thinking, "But a lot of different races seem to care a lot about the quest of Thorin and Co."  But, if you think about it, you will notice a few key groups who are not present at the Battle, or at all throughout the Hobbit.  If the adventures of Bilbo with Thorin and Company are important to the rest of the world, where are the men of Rohan and Gondor?  Where are the Rangers?  Where are the Ents?  Where are the orcs of Mordor and Isengard?  Where, for that matter, is Sauron?  Or Gollum?  Or the corsairs with the black ships?  The only armies that really show up in The Hobbit are the men of Laketown, the Elves of Mirkwood, the Goblins of, well, Goblin Town (still seeking revenge over the death of the Goblin King), and, of course, the Dwarves of Erebor.  And one Hobbit named Bilbo who just runs and hides behind a rock during the battle.  Okay, let's give the Orcs of Moria credit, because they'll probably show up in the movie edition of the Battle of Five Armies.

But, outside of the Battle, we don't really follow much of the daily lives and thoughts of the men, elves, orcs, goblins, or even the other Hobbits outside of the Company of Thorin and his buddies.

The Lord of the Rings covers the journeys, thoughts, and lives of so many characters, who are all - in one way or another - fighting for the same cause: to conquer Sauron and save Middle Earth.  There's just so much going on and so many diverse characters (all of whom we, the viewers grow somewhat fond of over the course of the 9.5 hours we spend with them over the course of the three movies), that sometimes it's hard to feel a personal connection.  Their personal lives all evolve and depend on Frodo's success, but they still have to deal with their own troubles, like orcs attacking from Isengard.

The Hobbit covers the journey of thirteen buddies who are on a mission that is very personal to them.  It may seem important, but again once you step back and look at the whole picture, you can see that these thirteen guys are really just a small part of the image.  The only people really effected by the success of failure of their mission are themselves and their families.

I'm not dissing Thorin's quest at all.  I'm just pointing out the different between the feeling of The Hobbit and the feeling of the Lord of the Rings.

And, to tell the truth, I didn't really understand, nor care to understand, the extent of the tragedy of the loss of Erebor, nor the extent of the emotional damage the event inflicted upon Thorin and his kin until I saw An Unexpected Journey.  One scene that sticks in my mind is an aerial shot of the dwarves pouring out of Erebor's side door, while smoke billows forth from the main gate.  It's haunting to think that Thorin is down there, running, terrified (even though he probably isn't showing it), grief-stricken.

We know exactly what this quest means for Thorin and his pals.  And, the Howard Shore soundtrack won't let us forget either.  (If you don't believe me, go listen to the Soundtrack, and make a tally mark somewhere for every time you hear the Misty Mountain tune replayed at various speeds and tempos).

As much as I love the Lord of the Rings, we don't get that moment.  There are literally dozens of them. Hobbits running from orc invaders in the vision in The Mirror of Galadriel.  People running from angry, scary looking mountain men.  Characters running from Uruk Hai.  Characters running from orcs.  Characters running from...other characters.  You get the picture.  But, the only moments that really get me in The Fellowship are when Gandalf falls into the Abyss in Moria, when Merry and Pippin are captured by the Orcs as Boromir is dying, Boromir's subsequent death, and Sam chasing after Frodo as Frodo prepares to leave for Mordor.  All of the other very dramatic running-for-their-lives scenes, though still heart wrenching to watch, and I'm sure devastating for the fantasy people involved, do not give the viewer the same feeling of personal connection to the characters.

Let's face it.  Once you've seen one peasant village burn, you've seen them all.  I don't mean to sound heartless, but after burning village #3, desensitization begins to set in.  I'm sure the people in those villages have been traumatized and emotionally scarred about as much as Thorin.  The only difference is that we - as the readers and viewers - don't get close enough to personally connect with anyone, as we do with Thorin in The Hobbit.

So, next time you eat at Olive Garden, think of Frodo and Sam, Merry and Pippin, and all of their Middle Earth buddies.

And, next time Grandma has you over for dinner, think of Thorin, Dwalin, Balin, Fili, Kili, Dori, Nori, Ori, Oin, Gloin, Bifur, Bofur, Bombur, and, last but certainly not least, Mr. Bilbo Baggins of Bag End.

The Bible, 2013 - Episode 2

The one and only thing I don't like about television series is that you have to wait a whole week to see the continuation of the story.

And, although I already know how the narratives in The Bible end (because I've read the Book), I have still been anxiously awaiting episode two.  But, it was worth the wait.

Episode 2 covers everything from Jericho to David and Bathsheba in two hours, which - like Episode 1 before it - means that a lot of theatrical squashing and cutting took place.  Certain events are condensed into "bite size" packages of 30 minutes, while other events (such as how Jonathan helped David escape King Saul) were brushed over.  But, the events which are depicted are pretty much spot on to the original text (aka The Bible by God and Various).

For all of you LOTR and Hobbit enthusiasts, they basically told three different Bible stories in about the same time as two thirds of a standard edition Lord of the Rings movie.  It would be like squashing The Hobbit, the Silmarillion, and The Children of Hurin into a 2 hour movie.  For you Narnia fans, it would be like squashing The Horse and His Boy, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, and The Last Battle into one 2 hour film.

For all of you who think I'm hopelessly obsessed with Hobbits and Lions, don't worry about me.  I'm getting back on topic now.

Episode 2 of The Bible was notably more brutal than Episode 1, which I guess makes some sense since they were covering several of the most brutal events of the Old Testament (Samson, the Battles with the Philistines, etc.).  If you have trouble reading the Book of Judges, this episode might be a little bit too much for you.  If, on the other hand, you watch Passion of the Christ every year or have a secret addiction to horror films, this episode will seem like nothing to you.

I forced myself to desensitize to certain amounts of violence because I was determined to see The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey in the theatre, but I had no idea what to expect.  Therefore, I had very little trouble watching The Bible, episode 2.  But, as I said in my previous Bible post, know your limits and know your kids' limits.

I don't think there has been a film adaptation of Samson since the 1949 film, and the only other Joshua film I've seen is a Veggie Tale.  Besides that, the only other film about the life of David was notably so poorly made that I'm surprised the editor even let it leave the editing room.  It went beyond my highly rigorous, almost unattainable quality standards.  The cinematography was terrible, and there were way too many jarring cuts between sequences.  It was really hard to follow, let alone enjoy.  My Final Cut Pro teacher would have failed the project.

Episode 2 took all three stories, squashed them together, and did so cohesively and with what appears to be meticulous attention to detail.  I was highly impressed, which (I'm hoping by now you've guessed) is saying something coming from me.  The production was beautiful and the transitions were seamless.  I don't think I've ever seen such an excellent film portrayal of the stories of Joshua, Samson, or David.  In fact, I haven't seen such a good film adaption of a Bible event since The Passion of the Christ.  The Bible television series has, thus far, exceeded my expectations.

Once again, some of the sequences may be a little too intense or gory for young children, but you know your children better than I do.  If your kids can sit through The Return of the King without burying their faces in pillows, go for it.  If your kids got scared of the Polly the Parrot or Scooby Doo, you might want to save Episode 2 for when the kids are in bed.

As for content, we're dealing with David, and with David comes tons of people dying or killing themselves.  We see a field of dead bodies with various weapons sticking out of them.  We get to see Jonathan get impaled by an arrow.  And, last but not least, we get to see King Saul stab himself with a sword.  Well, okay, we don't actually see him do it.  He holds the sword to his stomach, and we only see his shoulders and head when he drives the swords through himself.  We hear the sword slicing, then Saul spits out some blood, and topples over, and we're left staring at the point of a sword sticking out of his back for several seconds.

A younger version of David is shown beheading the already dead Goliath, after we see the stone go whizzing from his sling and pounding Goliath in the forehead.  Once again, we don't actually see the beheading happening.  We just see David raise the sword, strike what we're assuming is Goliath's neck (with maybe a squirt of blood from off camera), and then we see a silhouette of David holding up Goliath's severed head.  About as bad as Thror's beheading sequence from The Hobbit.

King Saul throws a spear at David, which misses him by a long shot.

Throughout the whole episode, various people are fought and killed by a number of different characters.  Other people have their throats sliced (a few actually on camera).  We see the Philistines set fire to a woman's house (while she's still inside), and it is implied that she burns to death, even though we do not see this happening.

During the Samson narrative, Samson kills people in various fashions.  He snaps one guy's neck, then attacks a bunch of people with a jaw bone.  We see a Philistine placing his thumbs over Samson's eyes to poke them out, but the camera conveniently cuts to Delilah while Samson's eyes are being poked out (we hear him screaming in the background).  Later, Samson's eyes are covered by a cloth to hide his eye sockets, but we do see blood staining the cloth and running down his face from his eyes.  Or, where his eyes used to be.  When Samson brings down the pagan temple on the Philistines, we see a few not-too-gory clips of people being crushed by parts of the building.  Afterwards, we see several dead bodies, including Samson, Delilah, and the Philistine leader.

It should be noted that Rahab is a prostitute, but she really doesn't dress inappropriately during her screen time.  She is referred to as a whore and manhandled a bit by one guy (nothing inappropriate).  Later, she is held at knife point by one of the Israelite spies.

Samson and Delilah are shown snuggling in bed together, but both are fully clothed (with the exception of Samson's shirt, which is mysteriously missing.

King Saul is shown literally relieving himself in a cave (everyone remembers that event, right?).  Once again, nothing inappropriate is shown.

We see Bathsheba's bare back and shoulders while she bathes, and wraps herself in a towel.  Later, she and David share a kiss or two, before the narrator explains that she became pregnant from their one night stand.  As prophesied, their son dies, but we do not see this happen.

Yup, I think that's about all you really need to know content wise about The Bible, episode 2.

I still highly recommend this television series, especially to Christians who have been anxiously waiting for a well produced film adaption of the Bible.

Be sure to try to catch Episode 3 on Sunday evening, on the History Channel.  The Bible's official Facebook page claims Jesus will make His first History Channel appearance in Episode 3!

The Bible, 2013 - Episode 1

At last!  Filmmakers have finally put some effort into making a film adaption of The Bible!

Only, this isn't just a film.  This is a TV series.  Not only that, but this is a TV series on...The History Channel.  It would seem THC is beginning to accept the possibility that The Bible actually happened, and is, therefore, a part of world history.

This is only part one of a mini-series.  Each episode is about two hours long, so it feels more like a legitimate movie (except for the commercial breaks).

I was a little skeptical when I first heard about The Bible TV series on History, since mainstream media isn't too enthusiastic about even suggesting that the events of the Bible actually happened.  But, after I found out that some Christian organizations were endorsing the series, I began to think that this series might be okay after all.

So, I finally decided to sit down and watch the first episode, but I went into it with my eyes and ears open for anything dangerously inaccurate.  Apparently, one of the producers of the series was one of the actresses in Touched By An Angel, and they have a disclaimer at the beginning of the show which states that they did their best to stay as accurate to the actual Bible as possible.  That made me feel better.

Praise God for Christian directors and producers who care about quality!  There are too few of them out there.

Episode one was stunning.  They squashed everything from the Creation to Mount Sanai into 2 hours, and therefore were forced to leave a few details out due to time restraints, but overall, I was highly impressed.

One huge complaint I've had with a lot of Christian media is the quality of the film itself.  Usually, the dialogue is cheesy, the sets looks so fake that I almost cry, and the screen itself is either blurry or the characters stand out way too much from the background.  The film may have a great message, but I find it extremely hard to enjoy or get anything out of it (except a headache) when the quality is bad.

The Bible TV series exceeded my expectations, and actually met my very high quality standards.

The dialogue was natural.  The acting wasn't over-rehearsed.  The sets and the costumes were realistic.  The special effects were amazing.  The overall quality of the film was perfect.  And, best of all, God was involved!  In fact, the only complaint I really have is that they left out Joseph and the famine in Egypt.  But, they can, perhaps, be forgiven for that.

This is definitely a Hollywood-ified adaption of The Bible.  There were several battle sequences that I don't remember reading in The Bible (i.e. in the TV series, the messengers from God engage in sword fighting and kill the people of Sodom who attack them, and the Israelite spies set to Jericho kill several people while trying to hide in the city, which I don't remember reading in the Bible).  And, the violent scenes that were from the Bible (i.e. Abraham rescuing Lot and Moses killing the Egyptian) were made action packed and bloody.  Also, young Moses and his Egyptian brother (who later becomes Pharaoh) are shown dueling, and the future Pharaoh's face is badly cut.

This is probably not the best TV series to be showing young kids, but you know your kids better than I do.  There are quite a few intense scenes, some of which include Noah's Ark, the "Sacrifice" of Issac, the Egyptians tossing the Hebrew babies into the Nile, Crossing the Red Sea, and Moses receiving the Ten Commandments.  We see Hagar's bare back after it is implied that she sleeps with Abraham.  Lot's wife, Miriam, and Rahab are treated roughly by men.  And, of course, you really can't get away with telling the story of Moses without showing the enslaved Israelites, and we do see quite a few of them being whipped by Egyptian slave drivers.

Those last two paragraphs would be my only concerns regarding whether or not this is something children would be able to watch, but - once again - you know your kids better than I do.  If you think they can handle it, power to you.  If you'd feel better previewing it to see if they'd be able to handle it, power to you.

Personally, I can't wait for Episode #2, even though I already know how the story ends.

Bilbo Strikes Again! - My Thoughts About The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

I know the second Hobbit movie hasn't opened in theaters yet.  9 Months and 10 days...not that I'm counting or anything.  Regardless, it's never too early to start thinking about The Hobbit part 2.

By now, I'm assuming most of you have seen The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (or at least read the book).  Knowing what we know about The Hobbit trilogy thus far, and about director Peter Jackson's track record with the Lord of the Rings trilogy, I'm going to take a gigantic risk and make a few 

pre-release comments and predictions about The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug.

I don't mean I'm going to predict the future.  Instead, consider this a weather forecast for the upcoming Hobbit movie.  Only, without the weather...

I tried really hard not to give anything big or important away, but it is very hard to do so when writing about what I think will happen, so this post probably contains spoilers.  So, you have been warned.

1. How are they all going to get down from that cliff?

Your guess is as good as mine.  Although, my brother and I think Gandalf should use his magic staff to carve stone "snow boards" for them, and then they should all go snow boarding down the side of the cliff, singing, "Surfin' Middle Earth" to the tune of the Beach Boys song.  However, I doubt this will happen.

2. Azog is still out there.  Somewhere.

Yes, folks, our friend the Pale Orc (who should technically be long dead) isn't about to give up on his prey that easily.  So, we can naturally assume he'll be back, and I'm hedging bets we'll see him and/or his cronies sometime between the opening credits and the 59 minute mark.

3. Thorin vs. Thranduil 

For those of you who may be a little confused by that section title, Thranduil is the Elf King.

Anyway, in filmmaking, we have a general rule which states that if you've got a gun in the scene, it should probably be used.  Elf Kings and dwarf grudges are no exception.

Even if you haven't read the book, and therefore have absolutely no idea what's going to happen in the 2nd movie, you just have to assume that the Elf King was not shown betraying the dwarves of Erebor in the Unexpected Journey introduction just to give Thorin a basis for his grudge.  And we aren't told that Thorin has a particularly nasty grudge against Thranduil and his elves just because Peter Jackson thought it would be a cool addition to the story.  You just know Thranduil's going to show up again sometime within the remaining two movies.  And, if you've read the book, I think it's safe to assume he's going to show up in The Desolation of Smaug.

So, if we can safely assume that Thranduil is going to show up again, presumably in the 2nd movie, we can also safely assume that he's going to run into Thorin.  And you just know there's going to be an argument between them.  And you just know that somewhere during that argument, Thorin is going to angrily blurt out, "You didn't help my people, you jerk!" (maybe in a more Thorin-like manner, of course.  If he actually says "jerk", I will not only laugh, but I won't blame Thranduil one bit for throwing Thorin in prison - oops, did I say that?)

4. Smaug

Since this second installment of The Hobbit trilogy is entitled, The Desolation of Smaug, I think it's safe to assume that we'll get to see a little more of Smaug in the movie.  So, if you were angry or discouraged by the lack of visible dragon in An Unexpected Journey, take heart!  Smaug has to show up sometime in the movie which bares his name.  Otherwise, it wouldn't be called The Desolation of Smaug.

Concerning Smaug's lack of presence, I see where the filmmakers were coming from.  Keeping Smaug (mostly) a mystery creates suspense and anticipation.  Now, we're all curious, so some of us may just come back only to find out what Smaug really looks like.

But, seriously, if they maintain the mystery of Smaug for much longer, some of us in the theater are going to get irritated.  We want to see the dragon!  Some of us allowed ourselves to be awakened at 5:45 in the morning and be dragged to a 9 am showing to see the dragon.  If there's a dragon involved, we expect to see the dragon.

Here's my theory.  They're holding out on revealing Smaug until the climax.  Then, his grand entrance will be even more shocking and terrifying because we will be seeing him in all of his fiery "glory" for the first time, just like the characters on the screen.

Here's my problem with that.  Earlier in the story, Bilbo (wearing his invisibility-inducing Ring) has a conversation with Smaug, during which Smaug accidentally reveals his one and only weakness to Bilbo.  This later becomes a determining factor during the climax, but I don't want to give things away. The only way I can see this working out is for Smaug to shake off his blanket of gold to reveal himself in full to Bilbo during their conversation.  This would still have a shocking and terrifying effect on the audience because we would be seeing the only dragon in the trilogy (and the first dragon Bilbo has ever seen up close and personal) for the first time, and thus may even share some of Bilbo's emotions.

5. Will Thorin be the one to kill Smaug?

Because we know how much Thorin lost at the claws and fiery breath of Smaug, the movie-goer in me hopes Thorin will be given this honor.

However, for the sake of book-to-film accuracy, I hope I'm wrong.

6. Swords are Named for the Deeds They've Done...

...and, as we know from The Lord of the Rings trilogy, Bilbo's sword does have a name: Sting.  We will get to see what deed Sting did to become "Sting" in The Desolation of Smaug.  Sadly, Smaug isn't involved in this.

7. Rendezvous With Spiders or Elves?

There's some speculation about whether or not Thorin will be captured by the giant spiders or will have his previously scheduled rendezvous with the elves of Mirkwood.  Someone found a picture from the B-roll footage of the movie which shows the dwarves running through the Mirkwood set, and Thorin has cobwebs in his hair.  I guess this is relatively easy to do when you've got 1 to 2 feet of thick, wavy hair.  Anyway, this picture leads some to speculate that Thorin will not have his individual rendezvous with the elves.

However, upon closer inspection of the aforementioned picture, I realized that at least part of the cobwebs that appear to be sticking out of Thorin's head are actually on the tree behind him and only appear to be physically attached to Thorin's head.  Also, we must take into consideration that Thorin has grey highlights in his 1 to 2 foot long, thick wavy hair.  These highlights could easily be mistaken for cobwebs.  

Here's my final and most concrete reason for believing that Thorin will stick to his previously scheduled rendezvous with the elves.  Time restraints.  Remember that in An Unexpected Journey they had to have Bilbo's encounter with Gollum running concurrently with the dwarves' experience, near execution, and consequent chase in Goblin Town.  Also, remember that the goblins did not bind their captives simply because the filmmakers didn't have enough time in the movie to unbind them before the Goblin Town chase scene.  Thus, in my mind, it is reasonable to assume that for purposes of time restraints, they will have to have Thorin's rendezvous happening concurrently with the other dwarves' capture by the spider and consequent rescue by Bilbo.

8. Does Bilbo actually get braver?

He must, because he rescues at least twelve of his companions from giant dwarf-eating spiders.

9. Is it safe to assume that Thorin might "die" again at the end of the movie?

No telling.  But, it wouldn't surprise me at all.  But, don't worry.  Even if he does "die" again, he's got to come back for the 3rd movie.  

10. Will they find the Arkenstone?

More than likely, no.  Not yet...

The Lorax (film adaption)

I grew up with Dr. Seuss, and I have good memories of reading The Lorax in my younger days.  So, I was excited when The Lorax was finally made into a movie.  However, one thing that kept me from seeing it in the theatre was that my overly-environmentalist, anti-war friend loved it and was telling me about how the environmentalist message is very clear in the film.  Although I agree that we shouldn't needlessly destroy nature, I do not like to support media that is heavily staunched in "green" politics.  

This didn't come as a surprise to me, since the media is trying to drive home the "green message" - save the environment.  I have no problem with that message.  I think littering is wrong, I think destroying the forests is wrong, and I also think that depriving God's creatures of their natural habitats is wrong.  However, I'm not "green".  I have a special bin in my room for paper to be recycled.  I save empty boxes to wrap presents.  But, my family is not all solar, nor do we harvest rainwater.  We use non-recycled paper products, we have real grass in my backyard, and the only reason I use a stainless steel water bottle is because my family believes it to be healthier than drinking from a plastic water bottle. 

But, after watching The Lorax, more or less, twice (yes, I did eventually watch it) it is my opinion that Hollywood tried way too hard to demonize the bad guys and drive the environmental message home.

Allow me to elucidate.

As I write this, I'm watching the scene from the Lorax where the Once-ler is singing "How Bad Can I Be?" while his factories sprout up and his relatives savagely chop down the trees.  At the end of the song, a gigantically out-of-proportion Once-ler is stomping through the remains of the forest, towering menacingly over the trees as they fall, singing "Who cares if a few trees are dying?  This is all so gratifying.  How bad could this possibly be?"  I have to admit, the guy looks absolutely demonic as he sings that last line of the song.  And then there's O'Hare, the air guy.  He's just down-right villainous.  In fact, both O'Hare and the Once-ler get so villainous that they cease to be realistic characters.  Especially O'Hare seems so much like every other villain that he's actually almost comical.  I ask you, am I a villain because I use non-recycled paper products?  Am I a villain for starting my own business? (more on this later)

I will not deny that the Lorax does have a "save the environment" theme.  Lines like, "I speak for the trees" testify to that theme.  But, I think that the environmental theme is only the surface, and possibly even a "harmless" cover for a deeper, larger, broader message that may not be as innocent as "save the planet".   Actually, I think that a stronger message the Lorax portrays is greed.  Good old fashioned "the love of money is the root of all evil".  

Allow me to explain.

The Once-ler makes his thneed, then make his promise to the Lorax never to cut down a tree.  He, the Lorax, and all the woodland creatures are all buddies…until a demand for thneeds pops up.  Then, the Once-ler starts growing his business.  During the aforementioned "How Bad Can I Be?" song, we see the Once-ler and his family dancing on a spiral staircase which seems to rise up in between huge stacks of money.  Later, in the same song, the Once-ler is shown ignoring the Lorax and the suffering of the woodland creatures, but if you look carefully, you can see that he's counting out a handful of bills as he walks by.  

Okay, let's give the Once-ler some grace.  His family thinks he's a failure even before he gets started, so he's probably under a ton of pressure to make them happy and to prove his worth.  They only start "loving" him when he gets successful and rich.  Once the forest is destroyed and the thneed company falls apart, his family leaves him, and his mother has the audacity to proclaim that he other son is "now my favorite child" in front of him.  No, I do not think the Once-ler is bad, just misguided.  

Earlier, before things get out of control, the Lorax tells the Once-ler, "A tree falls the way it leans.  Be careful which way you lean."  This could be taken as an environmental statement, but I think what the Lorax means is, "Congratulations, you're successful.  Just don't let it get to your head."  It's once the Once-ler starts thinking (and consequently singing) about growing his business that things get out of hand.  At that point, he's stopped caring about the Lorax, the trees, or his woodland creature friends because all he can think about is selling more thneeds to make more money.  After the aforementioned song, the Lorax asks the Once-ler, "Happy yet?  [Did] you fill that hole deep down inside you?  Or [do] you need more?"  This, I think, is a very telling question.  A greedy person cannot be satisfied.

This is the same story with O'Hare.  He doesn't want really trees to grow because real trees produce air through photosynthesis, which would make his mega-company, O'Hare Air, to become obsolete.  It really has nothing to do with the environment.  It all comes back to greed and the lust for money, money, and more money.

Which brings me to another less obvious point.  Perhaps it's just me, but it kinda seems like there's an underlying theme to this Hollywood rendition of The Lorax.  And that underlying theme seems to be that starting a business, and striving to grow that business is bad.  However, I'm willing to submit that the company that made The Lorax happens to be a big company which makes a lot of money, and a lot of that money goes into the savings pool for the next movie on the assembly line.  All that aside, is it wrong to start a business?  Nope.  But, there is something called responsibility.  It's really quite logical.  If your company requires a certain natural substance, like trees, then grow your own, and don't cut them all down at once.  If trees are allowed to function and grow the way they were made to, they will leave seeds for new trees.  Ever wonder why there seems to be an abundance of Christmas trees?  When I was in Oregon a few years ago, the friend I was staying with lived across the street from a Christmas tree farm.  Tons and tons of Christmas trees come out of Oregon every year, yet Oregon remains one of the greenest places in the continental United States.  Not because they're green.  Because they understand that if your business involves trees, grow your own.  Also, have you noticed that there hasn't been a national shortage of chickens?  With all of the chicken we consume on a weekly basis, you'd think chickens would be extinct by now.  The reason they're not extinct is because farmers and chicken companies have figured out that if their business requires chickens, they should produce their own.  When I was in Ireland several years ago, our B and B was on a sheep farm.  The owners of the B and B/sheep farm explained that one half of the field were wool-producing/breeding sheep, while the other half of the field was for slaughter.  This really isn't a hard concept.  Do I think the Once-ler's company might have survived and thrived if he'd kept his promise to the Lorax, kept things under control, and practiced the principle of moderation and reproduction (as I've explained in this paragraph)?  Yes, I do.

When it all comes down to it, the Once-ler let things get out of control because of a lack of self worth and pressure to be big, rich, and successful to make his family (and especially his mother) love him.  In the end, he's left with a big empty factory in the middle of a destroyed forest, and "that hole" the Lorax asks him about remains unfilled.  Truth is the only thing that can fill that "hole" is Jesus.  Just imagine life as a puzzle with a missing piece.  You can try all the different sized and shaped pieces you want, but only one will fit the space perfectly.  In real life, Jesus is that missing puzzle piece.  All we have to do is pick Him up and put Him in place, right in the center of our hearts and our lives.  Jesus is the only One who can give us true self-worth, no matter what others may think or say.  It is my opinion that things would not have gotten so out of hand if the Once-ler knew Jesus as Lord and Savior.