Noah: A Splash of the Apocalypse

The movie Noah opened in theaters at roughly 8pm Thursday night (March 28th, 2014).

Anti-Noah petitions have been showing up all over Facebook...for the past two months.  Two months.

The movie opened on Thursday night.

It has been protested for two months.  

Friday morning, I logged onto Facebook to find that one of the Christian pages had posted an advertisement for Noah.  It very innocently stated, "Noah hits theaters tomorrow".  I got on at 9am, and there were already 78 comments on the post bashing Noah, calling it a mockery, and expressing disappointment that this Christian site would advertise this horrible interpretation of the classic Bible story on Facebook.  Seventy-eight.

Did I already mention that the movie opened at 8pm Thursday night?

PluggedIn hadn't even reviewed it yet!

My opinion was, "Don't be so quick to judge something you haven't seen."  

Some agreed with me.  Some continued to rant.

So, I went to see Noah this afternoon.  

It was also my first Russell Crowe movie.

Here's Noah in a rather large nutshell:

In the Beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth.  He eventually created man in His image, but they sinned and were cut off from God.  Adam and Eve had three sons, Cain, Abel, and Seth.  Cain killed Abel, and Cain's descendants spread out and pillaged and plundered like evil people.  Seth's descendants were good and relatively peaceful people who tried to counter the evil of Cain's descendants.  Fast forward some hundreds of years; young Noah and his nomad father are innocently out in the wilderness when a group of Cain's not-so-cool descendants arrive.  They kill Noah's father, but Noah is conveniently hiding behind a rock, and therefore the line of Seth is not ended as previously assumed.

Meanwhile, as humans began to spread out over the Earth, a group of angels got together and jointly decided that they were going to go to Earth and help the peoples out (with what, I don't know).  God was somehow angered by this, so He punished them by causing them to get trapped in stone encasements when they hit Earth.  They are now mutilated creatures of the Earth, which the movie refers to as fallen angels in the opening credit sequence.  Since then, they have been hunted down by men (whether these are the descendants of Cain or Seth is unclear), and the only person who defended them was Methuselah (yes, the same guy who lived to be over 969 years old).  They are now living, more or less, in seclusion in a barren wasteland at the base of a mountain off in the middle of Nowheresville. 

Flash forward.  Noah, now a husband and a father, lives in another barren Nowheresville.  While he and his two eldest sons, Shem and Ham, are gathering food, they encounter some of Cain's descendants who are hunting.  This being an adventure film, Noah kills them, and he and his sons give the dead animal a proper funeral.  Ham seems unhealthily interested in the fact that Cain's descendants eat animals, and this concerns Noah. 

That night, Noah has a freaky dream.  He sees himself standing in a muddy pile, but instead of water intermingled with dirt squishing between his toes, he finds his feet covered with blood.  He looks up and sees a mountain, which happens to be the current residence of his grandfather, Methuselah.  Seconds later, he's underwater, surrounded by dead and decaying human remains. 

So, Noah packs up his family and they all head out to visit dear old granddad Methuselah at his mountain residence.  Which isn't as easy as it sounds.  They have to pass through Cain-people territory to get there.  They're making good time until they come upon the remains of some people who have been butchered by Cain's descendants.  The only survivor, a young girl named Ila, is wounded and feverish.  Noah and his family adopt her in an act of rescue as they are all suddenly chased by more Cain-peoples who have been lurching in the area.  Their chase leads them into the Nowheresville occupied by the fallen angels, who then spring upon everyone, kill the Cain-people (it's effortless for them as they're huge and covered in solid rock), and dump Noah and his family in a pit to die.

One of them, however, helps Noah and his family escape and guides them safely to Methuselah's mountain.  There, it is revealed that Noah is to build an ark to save the animals (and his family) from the coming destruction.  After some convincing, the fallen angels agree to help Noah in this endeavor.  

And God makes a river explode from the ground, and it caused a forest to grow out of Nowheresville, which then provides them with the material to build their ark.  Yay!

Ten years later...I guess Noah can get a 140 year job done in 10 years with the help of the fallen angel rock peoples. 

Ila and Shem are deeply in love, but Ila's childhood wound has left her barren (not a good situation for someone who's supposed to help repopulate the Earth).  Ham is jealous because he doesn't have a girlfriend, and Japheth (who was a baby when this whole thing began) is old enough to help with the ark building and food gathering and such.  The whole thing is disrupted when a group of Cain people show up, led by Tubal-cain (did we mention that Tubal-cain murdered Noah's dad at the beginning of the movie?).  Tubal-cain and company camp on the other side of the miracle forest, and promptly break out in chaos.  

The ark is completed on schedule, and the rain starts pouring.  The Cain peoples, realizing that what Noah mentioned about impending doom by flood is probably true, set out to take the ark.  Noah hides his family in the ark with the animals, and fights off the Cain peoples with the help of the fallen angel rock people.  Water explodes out of the ground, and the flood comes.  Everyone outside is washed away, except for Tubal-cain who has managed to stow away on the ark with the animals.

In the middle of all of this, Ila discovers that she's pregnant with Shem's child, a miracle in and of itself.  But, for whatever reason, Noah has come to the conclusion that God never meant for man to survive at all, and therefore Noah and his family are to be the last people to walk the Earth.  In light of this and the news of Ila's pregnancy, Noah is determined to kill her baby.

Nine months later...there're still on the ark.  It has stopped raining, and everyone is beginning to hope that they could find solid land to live on soon.  Shem and Ila prepare to take off on a raft to escape from Noah, but Noah destroys their raft, and Ila goes into labor (perfect timing).  Surprise, surprise, surprise, Ila has twins.  Twin girls.  Noah is about to kill them, but then stops and says, "I can't do this."  At that moment, the dove arrives with an olive branch.

Tubal-cain tries to kill Noah, but Ham eventually manages to kill him.  End of corruption.

They land, make lives for themselves, Noah has a period of depression, and Ham leaves home (thinking that he's too violent and corrupt himself).  Noah eventually comes back to himself, and bestows his blessing on Shem and Ila's children.  There's a cool explosion thing in the sky, God's sign of approval, which pans out into a really cool and vibrant rainbow.

Roll credits.

Yeah, that was a huge nutshell.

Here's my opinion of Noah, in a much smaller nutshell:

I do not consider my 2 hours and 17 minutes to be wasted.   

I didn't think it was as bad as certain petitions made it out to be.  However, I'd classify it as one of those films that are really, really good, but need different titles.  It was a version of the Noah story.  It was more like a post-Apocalyptic version of the Biblical account.  I did find it interesting, though, that they showed Methuselah being alive at the time (I think I've seen timelines that show that he would have been alive during Noah's lifetime).  The film also showed the rest of mankind as being extremely corrupt, which is Biblically accurate (not just Evan Almighty, "Hey Weirdo with a Beardo!  How's the ark building coming along?", but serious, honest to goodness corruption).  

But, be warned; Noah is rated PG-13 for a reason.  

Borderline stereotypical blood-splatter (Game of Thrones fans know what I'm talking about) abounds in the film; it's like an ejective explosion of blood that spurs out of every single wound in an almost unrealistic manner.   

In the midst of all the corruption, there's actually no overly sexual content or nudity.  Well, okay, we see Noah lying naked on the beach from a distance, but nothing explicit is shown.  Also worth noting is that Adam and Eve are shown naked in the Garden of Eden, but their anatomy is masked by a sort of glowing angelic light that envelopes their bodies, and again we don’t see anything explicit.  There is an awful lot of kissing between Ila and Shem, though.  The most that is shown is a bare stomach and bare shoulders.  Nothing explicit.  Nothing overtly sexual.  

Noah is mercifully void of harsh language problems.  Tubal-cain uses the d-word twice, but it makes sense in the context of the story (it's in his catchphrase).  It was such a relief to get through a film without being bombarded by foul language. 

But, the most important thing to remember is this:  It's an interpretive version of a classic Biblical account, NOT a word-for-word retelling of the account itself.

Why are Christians so up in arms about Noah?

First of all, not all Christians hate the movie. 

I believe I am the first of my Christian friends to have seen Noah.  Those I have talked to agree that the film should not be judged until viewed.

Most of the anti-Noah rants I've read were written by people who haven't seen the movie, but have read about it (whether it be from Glenn Beck or someone else).  While I respect Mr. Beck's opinion, I still hold my own; Noah wasn't as bad as people made it out to be.

Those who are not Glenn Beck are concerned about Biblical inaccuracy, which is actually a valid point.  But, sometimes we Christians can get a little...oh, how shall I say this?...out of control with our feelings and convictions.  While there is nothing wrong with our convictions, there comes a time when we overstep even our God-appointed duties to speak up.  

Noah is the perfect example.

When have we overstepped the realms of sanity?

When we start threatening to burn people at the stake for not agreeing with our feelings about something.  (True story, there's an article on FB stating that "[We] should consider burning at the stake any Christian leaders who endorse this movie").  I consider that to be a bit radical (and not in a good way).  Especially since Jesus, himself, commanded us numerous times to love our enemies.  The above article doesn't sound very loving or Christ-like.  It sounds more like Fred Phelps than Jesus.

For all of those who have been quoting the Bible in defense of your Noah-hating/burn-at-the-stake comments, here's a Bible verse for you:

"But, I have this complaint against you.  You don't love me or each other as you did at first!" (Revelation 2:4, NLT)

If we are going to share the truth (in this case, our feelings about the inaccuracies in Noah), we should spend less time hating and boycotting the film, and spend more time doing research so we can calmly and maturely share our thoughts and feelings with those who may not know the truth.  Trust me, nothing turns someone off like, "I'm boycotting the movie because I heard from Bill who heard from Bob who read on Facebook that the movie sucked."

By the way, there's a boycott on FB now.  I'm one of the few people who have posted something not-negative about the movie.  I've probably just set myself up for major bashing, but that's okay.  It won't change my opinion.

Should Christians see Noah?

As I told my FB friends this evening, I think those of us Christians who know what we believe and have a firm foundation in Christ are safe seeing it, if for no other reason than intelligent discussion (What was Biblically accurate? What was interpretation or creative license? etc.).  Others who are new to Christianity or aren't as firmly grounded in their faith should be careful.

Okay, so what was Biblically accurate about Noah?

1. The Corruption of the Peoples

"Now God saw that the earth had become corrupt and was filled with violence.  God observed all this corruption in the world, for everyone on earth was corrupt."  (Genesis 6:11-12, NLT)

Evan Almighty fans and people who have grown up on children's classic Bible stories may think that "corruption" means people just not loving God and teasing Noah for building a huge boat in the desert.  I once saw a kid's claymation version that portrayed "corruption" as houses bouncing around (assuming the occupants were chaotic and unruly).

In reality, think Sodom and Gomorrah...tens times worse.

That is my new opinion of the word "corruption" in this context.

Things got so bad that God, the infinitely merciful and loving creator of everything, decided to wipe them out and start over.  Remember, Sodom and Gomorrah were bad enough that God rained fire down on them to destroy them.  This is the entire world we're talking about.

So, technically, the movie's portrayal of the world's corruption is probably pretty accurate.  

The Cain peoples are unruly and murderous.  There's a rather disturbing scene where Noah goes to their encampment to find wives for Ham and Japheth, and he witnesses people trading their wives and daughter for food.  Some men manage to knock over a fence and get their hands on a donkey, and literally rip the poor thing to shreds while it's still alive.

By the way, no real animals were hurt in the making of this movie, if that makes the PETA people feel better.

2. God's Mercy 

Rewind to when God looked down and saw that the peoples of the Earth had become corrupt and He decided to wipe them out and start over.  Now, He could have just tossed a fiery bomb at us and blown up the planet, but He didn't.  Instead, He told Noah to build a big boat and put two of every animal in it so in order to preserve life.  Noah, his family, and the animals on board are to repopulate the Earth after the flood, and those God's creation isn't entirely annihilated, only purged of corruption.

"So God said to Noah, "I have decided to destroy all living creatures, for they have filled the earth with violence.  Yes, I will wipe them all out along with the earth.  Build a large boat from cypress wood and waterproof it with tar, inside and out [...] Look!  I am about to cover the earth with a flood that will destroy every living thing that breathes.  Everything on earth will die.  But I will confirm my covenant with you.  So enter the boat — you and your wife and your sons and their wives.  Bring a pair of every kind of animal — a male and a female — into the boat with you to keep them alive.””  (Genesis 6:13-14a, 17-19, NLT)

Although the name of God is never actually spoken in the movie, and God is generally referred to as "The Creator", it was still clear (at least it was to me) who we were talking about.  God, the Creator of all things.  The God who breathed life into everything and brought the world into existence just by speaking.  The same God who saved eight people and two of every animal is the same God as the one who sent His only Son to die on a cross for our sins.

3. Methuselah

While this is not actually mentioned in the Bible, I have read articles and seen charts that indicate that Methuselah would have been alive at the same time that Noah was building the ark.  So, it was kinda cool to see Methuselah pop up once in a while in the movie.

4. The Flood

Duh...

5. The Rainbow

...another "duh".  Although, it was shown in a very unique and vivid way.  

6. Noah Getting Drunk Afterwards

This is one of those things I wish they'd left out, but they put it in.  I guess most movies based on other text (whether it be Lord of the Rings or The Bible) have those scenes where we're like, "Well that's the one accurate part I wish they'd been inaccurate about."  In context, it sort of has a purpose, though.  

Again, while this is not actually mentioned in the Bible, the movie suggests the concept that Noah was so emotionally distraught after watching all of humanity die that he suffered a sort of nervous break down that may have caused temporary insanity.  This may explain why, in the movie, he convinced himself that God wanted him to kill Ila and Shem's daughters.  This may also explain why he goes off to a cave and gets drunk once everything is dried out and they're back on solid ground again.  The Bible doesn't indicate this, but it is still an interesting concept.

Other Things Worth Mentioning

1. The Watchers

Whoa, whoa, hold on!  The what???  

Okay, so I kind of forgot to mention that the movie also referred to the stone giant "fallen angel" peoples as The Watchers.  

I first heard about the Watchers in one of my favorite Christian novels, Dragons in Our Midst.  In those books, they are portrayed as fallen angels who have married humans, who are purely evil and are trying to take over the world.  In light of what I've read in those books, I was interested to see the Watcher's incorporated into the Noah movie.

In the movie, however, the Watchers are portrayed as remorseful angels who got stuck on Earth after coming down to help mankind.  They hoped and prayed for years that God would forgive them, and let them come back to Heaven, but to no avail...yet.

My thoughts: It's a Return of the King moment.

Side trip: In Return of the King, there is mention of an army that Isildur rallied to aid them in the battle against Sauron.  But, this army fled at the last minute and hid out in the mountains.  So, Isildur cursed them, so that they could never sleep until they had fulfilled their oaths.  Aragorn goes to rally the dead army to aid Rohan in defeating the armies of Sauron on the Pelennor Fields because he's Isildur's heir, and therefore the only living person with the right to rally them, and the ability to set them free.  They eventually agree to follow him into battle on the Pelennor Fields, and after the battle is won, Aragorn declares, "I hold your oaths fulfilled," and the dead army can finally actually, well, die.

It seems like the same kind of thing here.  God allowed them to be stuck on Earth for a time.  They said they wanted to help the humans, but the humans have hunted them down and killed some of them, so they gave up and hid in the wilderness.  They finally help Noah build the ark, and - although it's not said in the movie - I can image God saying, "I hold your oaths fulfilled," before He allows them to break free of their stony bodies and return to Heaven.  Again, there is no evidence of this in the Bible, or in the movie.  But, it is a concept.

Another thing about the Watchers: Genesis 6 mentions the Nephilim, who were apparently some kind of fallen angels that mated with humans (or were the Nephilim their children?).  Regardless, the Nephilim were giants, and Genesis clearly states that they were around at the time of Noah, and after the Flood.  The biggest evidence that the Nephilim were still around after the Flood is when the Israelites go to spy out the Promise Land, and come back with reports of freakishly tall giants.  So, the argument could be made that if the Nephilim were actual fallen angels (or the descendants of fallen angels), they could return to Earth and start all over again after the Flood.  

So, it is possible that this stone-encased "fallen angels" are the filmmaker's interpretation of the Nephilim?  It would make sense, since they're giants.  Food for thought.

2. Sin

Most non-Christians are of the opinion that man is basically good.  They’ll believe Pandora’s Box before they’ll admit that man brought sin into the world (as stated in Genesis). 

Noah is very adamant; man brought sin into the world when Adam and Eve disobeyed God and ate the forbidden fruit.    

I applaud these guys for not shying away from the issue!

Of course, they also take it to the extreme where Noah assumes that God means to forever rid the world of mankind because they were the ones who broke the rules to begin with.  This thinking leads to the almost murder of Ila and Shem's babies, but Noah eventually comes to his senses and realizes that he and his family have been preserved in order to repopulate the Earth after the Flood.

My Biggest Problem

Yes, I have one big issue with Noah.  And it is this; they gave Methuselah way too much power in the movie.

He's portrayed as some sort of magician who can work up magic sleeping potions and make you fall asleep by breathing on you.

The whole thing is most evident concerning Ila's pregnancy.  He says he's going to give her his blessing.  What he does is tough her stomach, and it is implied that she is magically healed of her barrenness by his touch.

Before that, Noah's wife goes to Methuselah and asks him to make it possible for Ila and Shem to have children.  She doesn't even bother checking with God.  She just goes to "all-powerful Grandpa Methuselah".  And he doesn't try to say, "Yo lady, God's the guy you should be asking."  All he says is something like, "This is probably going to end tragically for you guys."  Which it almost does.

My point: I really wish they'd have given the power to it's rightful owner, God, instead of making Methuselah out to be an all-powerful magician.

Conclusion

So, Noah was definitely interesting and not a waste of time. 

It was more of a post-Apocalyptic version of the Noah story. If you're expecting a word-for-word retelling of the Biblical account, you'll be disappointed. 

However, Noah was a good, well-made movie in and of itself. And there was some Biblical accuracy in the film (the animals came two by two, God told Noah in a dream about the flood, the other peoples were extremely corrupt, and the rainbow still appeared in the sky afterward). 

I will leave it up to you to decide whether or not to see Noah, in theaters or ever.  I could tell you one way or the other, but that decision really needs to be between you and God.  

If you do go, view it as a twist on a story as opposed to a direct visual interpretation of the Biblical account.  View it skeptically and critically, analyze everything, so that you will be better able to answer when others ask you about your opinions of the film (and you'll be better equipped to tell others the truth about the story). 

 If you don't go, then please, please, please do your research before bashing the film.  Read reviews from valuable sources.  Listen to people who have seen it.  And, above all else, don't start ranting and raving like a maniac (that's the best way to turn people off, I should know).

Either way, we should use Noah as a learning experience, to teach us how to articulate our thoughts and convictions in a loving, Jesus-like way.  If we're supposed to be Jesus to the world, then maybe we should start acting like it.

And, I still did not consider my 2 hours and 17 minutes to have been wasted. 

JRR Tolkien reads from The Hobbit (Part 2)

Part Two of Tolkien's Audio Reading of The Hobbit.



Enjoy!

J.R.R. Tolkien reads from The Hobbit

Greetings!



I was overly excited when I found this.  Why, you may be asking?  This is a recording of Tolkien (the man, himself) reading an excerpt from The Hobbit.  For those of us who were born way after Mr. Tolkien's departure from the world, this is the closest some of us will ever get to the Mastermind of Middle Earth.  Please do take sixteen minutes and enjoy!

The Various Character Journeys of Mr. Bilbo Baggins...continued

Wow, now I'm hung up on Bilbo.  But, why not?  He is, after all, the title character (being the only Hobbit in the Company of Thorin Oakenshield).

But, in case you're wondering, I still have a major crush on Thorin!

Back to our friend Bilbo.

As I sat here, slaving away at my homework, my mind began to wander, and I began to think about some Hobbit/LOTR fan art I really like.  Here are a few of the images that came to mind:

http://www.guestroom.the-green-door.net/images/UncleBilboCU.jpg

http://24.media.tumblr.com/914dcce5470c14eec936aa17355c5878/tumblr_mlfqi3jupe1qda04qo1_1280.jpg

These stood out to me not just because little Frodo is so adorable, but because I noticed the tenderness they portray.  This is a moment we don't actually see in The Hobbit or LOTR.  In fact, some might say they're inaccurate to the actual story as Frodo wasn't adopted until he was almost twenty (still a teenager by Hobbit standards).  But, even so, these images evoke a certain emotion that we, as fans, readers, and viewers, can imagine and believe, even though we don't actually get to see moments like these in the story itself.

First of all, the above images depict a closeness between Bilbo and Frodo.  Frodo has, at this point, lost his family (his parents died in a terrible boating accident).  After their deaths, he lived with his Brandybuck relations over in Buckland, and he is later taken in by Bilbo.

As a side note, Frodo's adoption is never flaunted.  It's only mentioned in passing at the beginning of the Fellowship (book) as an explanation for how Frodo got there in the first place (as it is presumed that Bilbo never married).  Frodo never says anything about it, Bilbo doesn't say anything about it, and it isn't brought up or used as a trigger point toward Frodo by anyone throughout Middle Earth.  In fact, the only people who really make a big deal about it are Bilbo's notably obnoxious relatives, the Sackville-Bagginses.  "You don't belong here," Lobelia Sackville-Baggins tells Frodo in the Fellowship, "you're no Baggins - you — you're a Brandybuck".  Which isn't entirely true since Frodo's father was also a Baggins.  And, even if it hadn't been, Frodo would have inherited the Baggins name when he was adopted by Bilbo.  And the only reason they make a big deal out of it is that, if Frodo hadn't been adopted, they would have inherited Bag End when Bilbo [eventually] kicked the bucket.

Second, the above images portray a certain tender side of Bilbo we haven't seen before in either LOTR or the Hobbit (books and movies).  It's a sort of fatherly affection which we can only image Bilbo could possess, but we never actually see it (partially because we come into their relationship so late in the game by the time the Fellowship begins).  In these images, I can tell Bilbo genuinely cares about Frodo, and Gandalf even states that Bilbo would never give Frodo anything he thought might harm him (in reference to the Ring).  This is the tender hearted, selfless side of Bilbo, who takes a potentially high-energy young Hobbit into his home just because Frodo needed a home.

Granted, of course, Frodo had a home in Buckland, but his adoption by Bilbo seems to have been more official.  

It is noted in the Fellowship that Frodo was Bilbo's favorite cousin, so we can safely assume that they already knew each other very well, and had already formed a closeness that neither shared with any of their other Hobbit relations.  Whether or not this was an actual father/son relationship is never clearly stated in the books (or the movies).

But, as I continued to slave away at my homework, I began to wonder about this father/son relationship between Bilbo and Frodo respectively.  More specifically, would the Mr. Bilbo Baggins we met at the beginning of An Unexpected Journey have been this selfless?  Would Bilbo have been a good father figure for Frodo if he hadn't gone on his quest and had all of his adventures with Thorin and Company?

Taking into consideration the kind of guy Bilbo was when we first met, I'd be inclined to say no.

Why?

Bilbo isn't up for anything that might interrupt his very delicate routine (adventures were out of the question).  As we prepare to welcome my stepmom into our family, I realized that I will be an Aunt in a week.  I've already met my future niece, who is three years old.  Not only this, but I've worked with children ranging in age from infants to four years.  Children, though adorable, are a lot of work.  I can't imagine the "old" Bilbo Baggins even considering taking on the responsibility of raising a child (even if said child was almost twenty), even more so if we're talking about a young child (as depicted in the above images).

I think the pre-adventures Bilbo would not have had the patience to deal with Frodo, especially if we imagine that Frodo was a little kid at the time of his adoption.  Even if Frodo was an older kid (Hobbit equivalent teenager), I don't think Bilbo would have agreed to take him in, or would have done so with great reluctance.  Having another person (or Hobbit) in the house would have disrupted his schedule and routine.  Adopting a younger Hobbit kid would have been completely out of the question.

Another thing to think about: Bilbo, as far as I can tell from the books, became popular with the younger Hobbits because of his stories about his adventures.  While all the grown-up Hobbits waved his tales off as "uncanny", the children flocked to him, and listened in wide-eyed fascination to his accounts of his experience with Thorin and Company.  If not for Gandalf sending Bilbo on the quest with the Dwarves, Bilbo would have been just another adult Hobbit who was very sensible, neat, and organized, the kind of Hobbit who thought that children should be seen and not heard, and who frowned upon stories of dragons and elves as "uncanny" and ridiculous, and therefore not worth the time.  I think it is safe to assume that Bilbo would not have been a favorite among the younger Hobbits if he'd lived a normal Hobbit life.  In fact, there would be no need to tell his story, as nothing unexpected would ever happen (save for the occasional marriage invitation or burnt muffin).  Not much as a story there, at all.

And if there's no story, then there's no book.  And if there's no Hobbit book, then there's no Lord of the Rings.

Luckily, Tolkien had others plans.  Because Bilbo did go on his adventures, and he did find a magic Ring in a cave in the mountains, and he did become very popular with the kids because of his stories, and he did adopt Frodo (however old Frodo was).

But, it is my opinion that Bilbo would not have even been open to the idea of adopting Frodo if he hadn't gone on his adventures with Thorin and Company.  Even bigger than his character journey where the Ring is concerned and how the Ring changed him, the Quest for Erebor in and of itself changed him in many ways as well.  To be specific, he became more selfless during his adventures.

Evidence?

When the Dwarves are kidnapped by the spiders, he could have left them.  He could have disregarded anything Gandalf had already said or might say, and escaped the situation with his life.  But, he didn't.  He stayed behind and risked his life to save his friends.

When the Dwarves are captured by the Elves of Mirkwood and thrown in prison, Bilbo could have stayed behind and let them be taken.  He could have let the Elves lead him out of the forest, and left the Dwarves to rot in prison.  But, he didn't.  He snuck into the Elven palace, and hangs around for months as he tries to devise a way to help his friends escape.  He's the one who finds all of their thirteen cells, and he's the one who figures out that Thorin is also a prison of Thranduil (in the book, Thorin was captured beforehand, and the other Dwarves don't know what happened to him).  And, in the end, he's the one who gets them out of Mirkwood, and doesn't even considering getting out himself until the very, very last minute (the one glitch in his brilliant escape plan).

And thus, Mr. Bilbo Baggins's character journey isn't just one controlled by a circular piece of shiny gold metal.  It is one that changes Bilbo's life in ways I doubt even he expected.  He doesn't just come back as the richest Hobbit in the Shire and the Bearer of the One Ring, but also as a humble and selfless one.

Bilbo came back from his adventures with a bigger heart.  The adventures made him more open to doing things that might upset his routine.  When Frodo's parents die, he's the one who says, "Well, you better come live with me, Frodo, my lad."  And he takes Frodo in willingly, not out of obligation or because he really doesn't want the Sackville-Bagginses to inherit Bag End.  It's a genuine, selfless love, and one that wasn't there before his adventures.

And, Frodo learns a lot from Bilbo's example.  Frodo, himself, is generally selfless and popular with his younger cousins, notably Merry and Pippin, both of him later accompany him on his own Quest in LOTR.  When faced with the reality that he'll now have to take the Ring to Mordor, Frodo can't bear to ask any of his friends (or cousins) to go with him.  He knows, somehow, that this is a hopeless Quest, and that, even if the Ring is destroyed, Frodo himself still probably won't make it home again. By then, he's willing to sacrifice himself to save the world, and (even though he is afraid) he is willing to do it alone.  It is only Sam's stubborn determination and loyalty that make Frodo finally agree to take him along.

Frodo may have had this selflessness already, but it is my opinion that it was nourished and fully matured by Bilbo's example, as Frodo observed Bilbo's own selflessness.

This tender, loving, fatherly side of Bilbo is one that was he may not have known about, himself, but it is one that is revealed by the selflessness he brought home as a result of his adventures.  And, it is one that may never have come to light if he'd stayed home. 

The Various Character Journeys of Mr. Bilbo Baggins

So, as I stated before, one of the biggest positive elements of Desolation of Smaug was the character journeys of certain characters, specifically those of Bilbo Baggins and Thorin Oakenshield.

How, specifically?

I'm glad you asked!

Bilbo

Despite my continued affection for Thorin Oakenshield, Bilbo comes first.

On the other hand, I'm finally talking about someone other than Thorin!  Isn't it amazing?

But, I digress.

There are two major differences we see in Bilbo in Desolation of Smaug.

The first is his level of courage and self-confidence.  He is, undoubtably, braver than he was when we first met him back in Unexpected Journey.  He doesn't seem as daunted by challenges or new stages in the adventure, as the Bilbo of Unexpected Journey would have been.  He doesn't seem quite as nervous of doing his bit of spy work now and then, nor does he seem to have much trouble with the idea of using his sword anymore.  When they first arrive at Beorn's house (this will need its own blog post eventually), and they are being chased by Beorn in his uncontrollable bear form, he just automatically draws his sword to defend himself.  Later on, when the spiders have the dwarves captive, Bilbo really doesn't hesitate to attack them on his friends' behalf.

And now we know how Bilbo's Elven sword became Sting!

Back on topic.

Unlike the Bilbo of The Hobbit book, our Bilbo voluntarily climbs a massive tree to reach the sun, and get his bearing (thank you, Peter Jackson, for putting the butterflies in there!).  This scene proves to be one of those brief clips where next to nothing is spoken, but so much is effectively communicated by the character's actions.  Bilbo breaks through the canopy of dense Mirkwood trees, and the very first thing he does is take a deep breath of the fresh air.  He's managed to escape, albeit temporarily, from the almost suffocating atmosphere of the forest, and just spends a few seconds basking in the long-lost sunlight…and enjoying the pretty blue butterflies.  It is, in and of itself, a touching scene.

On the flip side of Bilbo's character journey, we start to see some not-so-positive changes as well.

More specifically, we start to see the Ring taking control.

In a world where everything was filmed and produced in chronological order, Bilbo's ring wouldn't even really be important enough to catch our attention until Bilbo uses it to snag the keys and get his buddies out of their Mirkwood dungeon.  In that world, we'd find Bilbo's affection for the ring a bit odd.  Some of us might begin to suspect something dark and sinister, but we'd probably just dismiss it as one thing or another.  "You've been watching too much X-Files," you might tell yourself.  "You're just paranoid.  Not everything is a conspiracy."

However, as we live in a Post-LOTR franchise world, we notice that silly piece of metal right off the bat.  Ring-fanatics across the globe let out a collective, "Oooooh!  It's the Ring!" on Unexpected Journey's opening weekend alone.  And then, some of us had to go back for seconds.  And then, thirds.

As a side note, I'm really beginning to think that the reason these big franchise movies (LOTR, The Hobbit, The Chronicles of Narnia, Harry Potter, Twilight, Star Wars, etc.) gross so high is because of fans like us, the people who are willing to spend untold amounts of our hard earned cash to see the movie(s) in the theatre multiple times.  On The Hobbit's Official Facebook Page, I encountered someone who complained that he/she had only seen Desolation of Smaug four times.  My reaction was, "Only four times?"  But, who am I to talk?  I've seen Unexpected Journey three times, Desolation of Smaug twice, and The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe six times in the theatre alone.  But, ticket prices were a bit cheaper back in 2005/2006.

Back on topic.

It becomes clear very early on (even to those of us who know nothing about The Hobbit or An Unexpected Journey) that something's going on between Bilbo and his magic Ring.  Like Frodo before him (or after him, if we're going chronologically), the 2nd movie in the trilogy shows Bilbo lying awake at all hours of the night, staring at the Ring and stroking it tenderly, as if it's a pet poodle or a new born baby.  This scene is a prime example of the measures Peter Jackson and Company went to in order to connect the LOTR trilogy to The Hobbit.  It's subtle, but Ring-fanatics like me will recognize it immediately.

The biggest evidence that Bilbo's obsession with the Ring may be unhealthy comes a bit later.  However, this moment doesn't actually happen in the book.

Due to Bilbo's tree climbing expedition (mentioned above), he was the only one of the fourteen members of Thorin's Company not to be taken by the evil giant spiders.  Okay, okay, Bilbo did get nabbed on the way back down, but some mysterious reason, he isn't entirely knocked out by spider venom.  Is the brief clip of Bilbo tied up in a spider web cocoon another tie-in between him and Frodo (who also found himself entangled in a similar cocoon back in Return of the King)?  Anyway, there's still enough life in Bilbo for him to manage to escape from his spidery bonds and go find the rest of his friends.  In order to do this effectively, though, he puts on the Ring.

Everything starts out just fine, and accurate to the book.  Bilbo fights the spiders and rescues his friends (including Thorin who should, at this point, be having his epic "You betrayed my family!" conversation with Thranduil…but isn't).  Things start to not be okay when Bilbo loses the Ring in a surprise attack by a giant spider.  Instead of staying to help his friends, as he's supposed to do in the book, he goes chasing after the Ring.  And thus, leaves his friends to fend for themselves in their fight against the spiders.  Which then makes for yet another one of those long, drawn out, unnecessarily gory battle scenes that Peter Jackson has apparently become so fond of.  And, which consequently leads to the dwarves running into and getting captured by the Elves.

Where is Bilbo this whole time?

Off searching for his Ring.  He looks over and sees it a short distance away.  All seems well.  He'll get his Ring back and go help his friends.

But, no.  Another giant spider pops up out of a secret den and lands, as Mr. Jackson would have it, right on top of the Ring.

Bilbo doesn't even hesitate.  He leaps at the spider, fights with it, and eventually hacks it to death.  He grabs his Ring, stands  over the mutilated carcass of his first cold blood murder, flashes a smile, and declares triumphantly, "Mine!"

And this is the moment that we realize that our furry footed friend who detested the idea of adventures when we first met him back in Unexpected Journey has become a vicious killing machine.  Albeit, it's an evil spider, but all the same.  Bilbo isn't as innocent as we once thought.

Bilbo follows us down this mental road a minute later, after catching his breath for a bit.  His expression changes to one that wordlessly says, "What just happened?  Where am I?"  He stares at the Ring in confusion as if to say, "How did I get here?"  Then, he looks up and sees the spider he's just killed in front of him.  He looks shocked, until he realizes, "Oh my goodness!  I did that."  His expression changes from shock to horror as if to say, "Oh my goodness!  I was willing to kill in cold blood for this stupid piece of gold."

6a00d83451be5969e201a3fb6277d3970b-pi

At this point, Bilbo should have tossed the Ring away.  But, actually to his credit, he pockets it, and later uses it to follow his buddies and their Elven captors into Thranduil's kingdom.

Why do I say this is to his credit?  The Ring doesn't let its bearers get rid of it so easily, so why is it good that Bilbo kept the Ring after everything that's happened to him?

First, because, at that point, anyone could have found it.  And anyone happens to include Sauron or Azog or anyone serving Sauron.  If Bilbo had disposed of the Ring right then and there in Mirkwood, it would have made its way back to Sauron that much faster.

End of Middle Earth as we know it.

End of story.

And, if Sauron got the Ring back so soon, the Ring would never have come to Frodo, and there would be no Lord of the Rings trilogy for us to enjoy.

Thank you, Bilbo, for not getting rid of the Ring when you thought about it!

My Ring-fanatic friend made an interesting point:  After this episode with the spiders and the Ring and all that, Bilbo seems to be more cautious about wearing/using the Ring.  Granted, he uses it to get his friends out of Thranduil's dungeon.  But, there are also a ton of other places he could have used it, but didn't.

Most notable is Erebor.

When Thorin sends him into Erebor to find the Arkenstone, Bilbo doesn't put the Ring on until Smaug begins to wake up, and that more out of panic than anything else.

Smaug can smell him, hear his breath, sense his fear, but he can't see him.  Which gives Bilbo the upper hand, in some ways.

But, Smaug hits on something, that is, in and of itself, a major tie-in between LOTR and The Hobbit.  "There is something about you. Something you carry, something made of gold… but far more precious…"  And, of course, "precious" echoes and reverberates off the walls in an overly dramatic fashion, which leads Bilbo to hallucinate and see Sauron's eye, and unknowingly take off the Ring, which then defeats the purpose of hiding from Smaug in the first place.

Now, before we get too much further, let me clear up one very important thing for you: Smaug and Sauron are not allies.

How do we know this?

Simple.  If Smaug was in alliance with Sauron, he would have been called upon to join Sauron's forces at Dol Guldor.  Which, clearly he isn't, or he wouldn't still be sleeping in his pile of gold in Erebor.

Smaug is his own little evil entity, and he's really only important to Thorin and Company's personal little journey to reclaim The Lonely Mountain.  The only people who are really concerned with Smaug's presence are Thorin, his buddies, and the people of Laketown.  The rest of Middle Earth could really care less.

Now that we've got that straightened out, let's get back on topic.

The fact that Smaug can detect at least some of the power (and possibly the all around evilness) of the Ring should say something to Bilbo.

Smaug has been practically suffocated in gold for hundreds of years.  He knows its scent like the back of his claw.  So, why should the Ring smell any different to him?

Because the Ring isn't just an ordinary ring.  Smaug doesn't have to be on Sauron's Facebook Friends List to sense his power and malice in the Ring (we find out in Fellowship of the Ring that Sauron passed some of his power and malice and cruelty into the Ring when it was forged).  Maybe Smaug doesn't quite know what it is.  Maybe he doesn't recognize it as part of Sauron or Sauron's nature.  But, he does recognize that the Ring isn't just another piece of gold to add to his collection.  He recognizes it as evil, just like himself.

Then, why doesn't he try to take the Ring from Bilbo himself?

Perhaps its because he knows it is evil?

Or, perhaps, because, like everyone else, he's heard of Sauron.  He knows the legends of the Ring that was taken from Sauron so long ago.  And, suddenly he finds himself face to face with it.  Maybe he laughs at Bilbo's obvious ignorance.  After all, how could Bilbo not know what he's got in his pocket?  But, at the same time, he doesn't want anything to do with it.

Smaug is his own evil entity, wholly separate from Sauron.  Maybe he likes it that way, he likes the idea of being an Independent bad guy instead of working for the large Mordor corporation.  And, maybe he'd prefer to keep it that way.

He could very easily fry Bilbo, taken the Ring, and delivery it to Sauron.  But, maybe he knows (or at least assumes) that, in doing so, he would be taken over by Sauron and made into one of his servants.

In any event, Smaug isn't about to find out.


Yeah, I know I said this post would be about Bilbo's character journey.  I got a little distracted by Smaug and the Ring.  But, the Ring does have a way of making itself the center of attention, doesn't it?

The Desolation of Smaug

Mr. Jackson and the others over at New Line, MGM, Wingnut, and the rest decided to open The Desolation of Smaug not only on one of the most unlucky days of the year (if you believe Friday the 13th is bad luck), but also right as all of my college instructors started piling on the pre-Finals study material/homework.

Granted, my Pastor and I went into the movie expecting to be disappointed.  I also ran into a few classmates and fellow Ring Fanatics/Whovians on opening Friday afternoon, and they'd apparently gone to see it on Thursday night (midnight?).  They absolutely loved it.  They hated the 3D 48-fps version. I'd already decided that I'd go on opening weekend regardless of what Finals looked like, so at 10am on December 14th, there I was, standing in line at the movie theatre with my Dad, my stepmom, my brother, and two of my buddies.  But, as always, we went to the 2D regular showing.

My dad and my stepmom hated it.

Both of my friends were (unbeknownst to me) terrified of giant, dwarf-eating spiders.

I think my brother and I were the only ones who really, thoroughly enjoyed the whole thing (including the spiders).  It was after the incident with the spiders and after watching The Host with one of my friends that evening that I came to the conclusion that I am officially desensitized beyond the point of no return (with a few exceptions).

But, when later asked for my personal opinion of the movie, I had to think about it.  The book-to-film accuracy freak side of me was disappointed and a bit irritated with some of the changes that were made.  The die-hard movie goer side of me loved it.  In the end, my conclusion is this; there are three types of book-to-film movie adaption categories;

1. The movie is spot on to the book, with a few minor differences to help the overall flow of the story, but usually nothing too big or noticeable.  (The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is a good example of Category #1.)

2. The movie is different from the book, but is still a good movie if considered a "stand-alone" piece separated from the original story.  (Prince Caspian is a good example of Category #2.)

3. The movie is so different from the original story that it is sickening, to the point that whatever those crazy film people did to it is purely unforgivable.  (Voyage of the Dawn Treader is a PERFECT example of Category #3.)

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug falls into Category #2.  Of course, being in this category doesn't mean that book-to-film accuracy freaks like myself are all hunky-dory with all of the changes.  My Pastor, my Hobbit-fanatic classmate, and I still had our share of complaints about it.  But, my classmate and I can still somehow say, "It was AMAZING!"

Why?

I'm glad you asked.

1. Scenery

Peter Jackson and Company do not disappoint us movie-goers who sit through his two hour 40 minute monstrosities just to see the pretty scenery.  We're even happily when we discover that most of those landscapes are REAL PLACES that we could potentially go to someday! 

2. The Action

If you come out of The Desolation of Smaug and can look me in the eyes and tell me it was boring, I'll check to make sure we saw the same movie.

3. The Characters

All of our favorite characters are back again for the continuation of the adventure!

So, why didn't we like it?

Again, I'm glad you asked.

1. Orlando Bloom

If you're one of those people who went to see Desolation of Smaug solely because of Orlando Bloom, I pity you.  As it is, Legolas doesn't even show so much as a toenail in the book.  His being in the movie is purely for his fans (big star with big fandom equals more revenue for film).  Sorry Orlando.  You're a great actor, but you don't belong in The Hobbit.

However, this can be excused by the simple fact that Legolas is Thranduil's son.  Also, it is important to note that Elves lives an exceptionally long time, even longer than the average Dwarf or Hobbit.  Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Legolas could have been present in Mirkwood at the time of The Hobbit, even though he is not directly mentioned in the book.  His absence from the book is simply due to the fact that, as my Pastor has stated to me on multiple occasions, Tolkien hadn't yet conceived the character of Legolas when he wrote The Hobbit. 

So, we have to excuse Peter Jackson and Company for working Legolas into the movies.

2. Kili and Tauriel

Save us!  Another stupid, unnecessary romance!  Tauriel was made up by the filmmakers for the purpose of giving the movies some feminine flare.  All that being said, the "romance" between her and Kili is altogether uncalled for and unnecessary. 

Besides that fact that I generally identify myself among the anti-Twilight crowd (I'm so sick of unnecessary romance), it's a flat out insult to the world and various cultures of Middle Earth.

Remember what we've already discussed about An Unexpected Journey?  Here's a quick refresh:  In summary, Dwarves HATE Elves, and Elves reciprocate.  They just do.  They've never really gotten along.  But, Thorin and the folks from Erebor have a particular grudge against the elves of Mirkwood due to the fact that Thranduil refused to help them when Smaug attacked the Lonely Mountain. 

So, would someone please explain to me why Kili is suddenly so attracted to Tauriel?  Or why Tauriel is so attracted to Kili? 

In the words of Melanie Stryder (infamous voice in Wanderer's head from The Host), "Why is he looking at you?  In fact, why are you looking at him?"

Flat out disrespect for the story.  That's the only explanation my Pastor and I could come up with. 

I understand, some things need to change every so often.  Prince Caspian is, admittedly, the slowest paced of the seven Narnia books, so the added Battle Scene was a welcome addition (even for me).  But, this added romance is uncalled for and unnecessary.  It just disrupted the flow and integrity of the story.  That is unforgivable!

Of course, you might be saying, "But, their romance saved Kili's life."

Well…

3. Kili's Wound

…Kili doesn't get struck by a poisoned arrow in the book. 

No poisoned arrow, no need for hot Elf to save him.  Problem solved. 

Again, this is another unnecessary plot change.

Which begs the question…

4. Why did the Elves just Let Them Go?

Bilbo puts Dwarves in barrels.  Okay.  They all escape through the hole int he floor.  Okay, I'm still with you.  Elves go after Dwarves.  This, I understand.  Orcs show up and attack Dwarves in barrels.  Understandable.  Elves show up and attack the attacking Orcs.  Also understandable.  Orcs run off, Dwarves float off, Elves watch Dwarves float out, then return to Thranduil.  What? 

If they're after the Dwarves, and the Dwarves are literally trapped by the river gate thing, then why do they just let them float by when the Orcs are defeated?  Wouldn't it make more sense to recapture your prisoners if they're right there and easily grab-able.  That makes no sense.  They were kind enough to let them go for the sake of us movie-goers, because Desolation of Smaug would have been insanely long and boring if they'd spent the majority of the film's duration in Mirkwood prison.  But, it's not practical.  If you're chasing a group of escapees, and you all get attacked by a mutual enemy, you still don't just let your original captives get away.  Not when you're as organized and efficient as the Elves of Middle Earth. 

There's a fine line between reality and believability.  This incident crosses both lines, and touches on the completely, unforgivably unbelievable side of the line.

So, besides scenery and all-around awesomeness, did Desolation have any redeeming qualities?

Actually, yes. 

"Like what?" you ask?

Thorin and Bilbo's character journeys for one thing. 

But, that's going to have to wait until the next blog post.  (Oh yes, I'm pulling a cliffhanger on you all!)

But, don't worry.  I won't make you wait as long this time.

World's Shortest Post

I just wanted to write this post to say…

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

…to all of you, my readers.

I sincerely hope you all had a wonderful day celebrating the commemoration of the Birth of Christ!

~LynZ Media Thoughts


PS - I promise my Desolation of Smaug post is coming soon!