We have detected that cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please enable cookies to ensure the proper experience.
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 106
  1. #1

    Azog?!? (Hobbit-spoiler)

    +++ Possible spoilers for the Hobbit-movie in here +++

    I was actually looking forward to the Hobbit movie coming out this week. I tried not to read too much in advance, and wanted to approach it with an open mind. However, last night, my gf read me a review by a newspaper.
    I am not sure how correct the author was, because in his description of the original story, he got a few little things wrong.
    However, he mentioned

    *spoiler*


    That Bilbo and his companions, throughout the movie, are chased and hunted by a group of orcs, led by Azog. Apparently, this was added in order for some extra fight-scenes between the dwarves and the orcs.
    I usually don't get ticked off that easily if smaller things about the story are changed, but this kinda sounds...wrong

    why does it have to be Azog... he was dead by the time the journey took place. His son Bolg was actually part of the plot, so what is this about?
    When I watched the production-video blog and saw they had casted someone for Azog, I actually thought he would be part of an introduction, telling more of his story etc.
    Did the reporter just get it all wrong, or is it true that Azog is hunting Bilbo and his companions?

    I also just found this while googling:
    "From the latest WB character brief for Azog:
    'It was said that Azog the Desecrator fell many years ago in the great battle between the Orcs and the Dwarves. But now he appears again at the top of a deadly horde of killer orcs. For Gandalf begins a race against time because he has to figure out the connection between the most dangerous orc commander and the growing evil, which takes shape in the ruins of the fortress of Dol Guldur. One thing is totally clear: no one will deter Azog from his intention to destroy Thorin Oakenshield’s companions to the last dwarf.'"
    (this kinda seems to be hinting that Sauron as the Necromancer resurrected Azog?)
    Last edited by Cravon; Dec 10 2012 at 09:43 AM.

  2. #2
    PJ, what have you done now..... I expected a few twists but this sounds so unnecessary.
    [FONT=Trebuchet MS]"You can't fight the Enemy with his own Ring without turning into an Enemy" - J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter # 81


    [/FONT]

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Mont Clare, PA
    Posts
    82
    I don't understand why they used Azog either. The histories are clear that he was slain by Dain Ironfoot and his decapitated head was left on a stake after the Battle Of Azanulbizar (with the wergild for Thror stuffed in his mouth). It would have made sense to expand Bolg's part in the story if they really needed a villain - perhaps have him out for vengeance for the death of his father.
    [CENTER][color=yellow]BRAITHIR[/color] - Elf Hunter (Explorer/Tailor) * [color=yellow]GLAMWYN[/color] - Man Champion (Armsman/Weaponsmith) * [color=yellow]GORBODOC[/color] - Hobbit Minstrel (Yeoman/Cook)
    [color=yellow]GRIMHAF[/color] - Dwarf Guardian (Armourer/Metalsmith) * [color=yellow]MORDENUS[/color] - Man Captain (Historian/Scholar) * [color=yellow]SABELTAN[/color] - Man Burglar (Tinker/Jeweller)[/CENTER]

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,094
    Quote Originally Posted by Cravon View Post
    "From the latest WB character brief for Azog:
    'It was said that Azog the Desecrator fell many years ago in the great battle between the Orcs and the Dwarves. But now he appears again at the top of a deadly horde of killer orcs. For Gandalf begins a race against time because he has to figure out the connection between the most dangerous orc commander and the growing evil, which takes shape in the ruins of the fortress of Dol Guldur. One thing is totally clear: no one will deter Azog from his intention to destroy Thorin Oakenshield’s companions to the last dwarf.'"
    (this kinda seems to be hinting that Sauron as the Necromancer resurrected Azog?)
    Damn, PJ's got carried away this time...

  5. #5
    Don't blame PJ, blame Fran Walsh. She seem have a love for messing up the story(like taking the ring to Osgiliath)

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    912
    Why so surprised?

    We all know what Peter Jackson and company did to LOTR. And even though a lot of people complain about the things he changed or left out from the books - hardly anyone mentions the things he changed that made THE MOVIE BETTER - like what he did to the beginning of the film where he sped up the time line between Bilbo leaving The Shire and Frodo leaving The Shire - with the Nazgul in hot pursuit. Why? Because FOR THE FILM it was better - more intense - and needed a kick in the action to add suspense to get that feeling of being hunted and time running out. If they followed the story line exactly - yes it would have been truer to lore and delighted Tolkien fans - but would have bored the tears out of regular movie goers.

    all in all, they managed to do a difficult thing with those movies - presented the story in its essence and covered the major feel of the book - without being too bogged down by the incredible details and side trips and aspects that make a great book but would be a disaster on film because of time considerations and the limits of the media - While at the same time managing to deliver a commercial success that stands on its own and is appealing to non-Tolkien reading fans. It must be an incredible hard thing to do - to balance the expectations of hardcore Tolkien fans - against the short attention span and block buster sensibilities of regular movie going folk - and still manage to make a money making movie...

    Even some of things he did change that in my mind was unnecessary and offended me the most - like what he did to Faramir - who never wanted the ring - made some sense when you see the dynamic that pete was trying to show us between Faramir, Boromir and their father - and even though it breaks lore - I have came to accept it as a retelling of an aspect that the author of the Redbook did not catch, nor record and that who ever is telling the movie version of the story (possibly Faramir himself or even Aragorn) felt it was an important aspect of the tale because it adds depth and conflict and triumph over loyalty, honor and doing the right thing - even when it would be easier to do the wrong thing. Great stuff ( people complain about Tolkiens characters being 1 dimensional and then some depth is fleshed out and promptly rejected - lol - I know, because the professor didn't add the depth its consider un-canon - but the professor didn't make any movies - so its un-canon to begin with)


    So I guess i'm just going to have to trust peter with the movies and realize he knows what is best for the movies - for the balancing act and accept the parts that are true to lore (and lick it up) and accept the additions for what they are - elements that make a BETTER MOVIE or the MOVIE BETTER.

    And if it isn't better - or good - or needed... for the balancing act or the Movie - well I guess the box office receipts will tell that tale.

    But I know from re-reading the LOTR after I watch the trilogy compared to readings before I watched the trilogy - that my minds eye is more active, complete, descriptive and fluid due to Peter Jacksons imagery filling out the vagueness of my imagination, thus making it a more dynamic and fulfilling read - increasing my enjoyment.

    I expect the same with the Hobbit movies.
    Last edited by Dwarendele; Dec 11 2012 at 05:24 PM.
    Take Care,
    D.
    [URL="http://forums.lotro.com/showthread.php?496094-The-Brief-Mr.-Bako-Bongo-In-Soup-Du-Jour."]My LOTRO Comics and Fan-Fiction[/URL]

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by Dwarendele View Post
    Why so surprised?

    Even some of things he did change that in my mind was unnecessary and offended me the most - like what he did to Faramir - who never wanted the ring - made some sense when you see the dynamic that pete was trying to show us between Faramir, Boromir and their father - and even though it breaks lore - I have came to accept it as a retelling of an aspect that the author of the Redbook did not catch, nor record and that who ever is telling the movie version of the story (possibly Faramir himself or even Aragorn) felt it was an important aspect of the tale because it adds depth and conflict and triumph over loyalty, honor and doing the right thing - even when it would be easier to do the wrong thing. Great stuff ( people complain about Tolkiens characters being 1 dimensional and then some depth is fleshed out and promptly rejected - lol - I know, because the professor didn't add the depth its consider un-cannon - but the professor didn't make any movies - so its un-cannon to begin with)


    So I guess i'm just going to have to trust peter with the movies and realize he knows what is best for the movies - for the balancing act and accept the parts that are true to lore (and lick it up) and accept the additions for what they are - elements that make a BETTER MOVIE or the MOVIE BETTER.

    And if it isn't better - or good - or needed... for the balancing act or the Movie - well I guess the box office receipts will tell that tale.

    But I know from re-reading the LOTR after I watch the trilogy compared to readings before I watched the trilogy - that my minds eye is more active, complete, descriptive and fluid due to Peter Jacksons imagery filling out the vagueness of my imagination, thus making it a more dynamic and fulfilling read - increasing my enjoyment.

    I expect the same with the Hobbit movies.
    THIS. If I could give you Rep, I would. Having Azog in the movie does seem odd to me, but I haven't seen it yet. I am going to reserve judgment until I actually watch the movie.
    Iaralor | Riddorra | Cirnordar | Thransi | Fanion | Tarro | Otleif | Mallelleth

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,094
    Quote Originally Posted by Dwarendele View Post
    Why so surprised?
    Because a (possibly) undead Orc-chief still seems like pushing things a bit.

    We all know what Peter Jackson and company did to LOTR. And even though a lot of people complain about the things he changed or left out from the books - hardly anyone mentions the things he changed that made THE MOVIE BETTER
    Well, *I* do (and have before) but you seem to have swung too far in the opposite direction, with those ALL IN CAPS phrases you've posted not doing much to suggest a balanced view on your part, either. Let's try to distinguish between something that genuinely makes the movie better and stuff like, say, umpteen added fight scenes that are there to pad things out and to make the movie more crowd-pleasing and hence earn them more money in the process of turning one small book into a huge three-movie blockbuster. More popular does not necessarily mean 'better' as a movie, as summer blockbusters often demonstrate.

    So I guess i'm just going to have to trust peter with the movies and realize he knows what is best for the movies - for the balancing act and accept the parts that are true to lore (and lick it up) and accept the additions for what they are - elements that make a BETTER MOVIE or the MOVIE BETTER.

    And if it isn't better - or good - or needed... for the balancing act or the Movie - well I guess the box office receipts will tell that tale.
    We know from pained experience that his additions can be a mixed bag so no, I don't see why we have to accept the additions as elements that make a better movie. And reviews thus far suggest a rather more dire problem: that the story has been spread thin, like butter scraped across too much bread. (My analogy; it seemed appropriate).

    Sure we'll all go and see it anyway, but I'm not expecting another FOTR.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    912
    Because a (possibly) undead Orc-chief still seems like pushing things a bit.
    And sending the Elfs to Helms Deep, or The Ring to Osgiliath wasn't?

    Well, *I* do (and have before)
    Then bravo old chap – well done.

    with those ALL IN CAPS phrases you've posted not doing much to suggest a balanced view on your part
    I wasn’t trying to present a balanced view – my post is firmly tilted towards my opinion.
    All those IN CAPS phrases – all 4 of them, was to emphasize the differences between the story in a book and the story in a movie.

    Let's try to distinguish between something that genuinely makes the movie better and stuff like, say, umpteen added fight scenes that are there to pad things out
    I did – I gave a specific example, that in my opinion, the way they treated the timeline in the first part of FOTR was much better for the movie then what is in the book if presented in movie form. I did not mention gratuitous fight scenes or cinematic splashes of movie eye candy.

    I don't see why we have to accept the additions as elements that make a better movie.
    I would not presume to tell anyone what they have to accept – I merely pointed out that I have come to accept certain additions as elements that make the movie better (for me) as a movie.

    And reviews thus far suggest a rather more dire problem: that the story has been spread thin, like butter scraped across too much bread. (My analogy; it seemed appropriate).
    Reviews – Resmiews: I could care less what jaded and cynical (or honest and thoughtful) reviewers, who have to sell newspapers, have to say – they almost never reflect my likes or dislikes. I'll hold out judgment for the only review that matters to me – my own.

    But I did like your reference – it's a great line.

    Sure we'll all go and see it anyway, but I'm not expecting another FOTR.
    Yes, we all will go see it – I have tickets already – and I am hoping for another FOTR or at least better than the imagery I have in my minds eye now for The Hobbit: the old Rankin and Bass cartoon – or the Wenzel graphic novel (which is quite exceptional) but still the LOTR movies brought the book to life in my minds eye – and I am hoping that the Hobbit movie does the same – without that terrible “Greatest Adventure” song by Glenn Yarbrough - Lemmiwinks!
    Last edited by Dwarendele; Dec 11 2012 at 04:45 PM.
    Take Care,
    D.
    [URL="http://forums.lotro.com/showthread.php?496094-The-Brief-Mr.-Bako-Bongo-In-Soup-Du-Jour."]My LOTRO Comics and Fan-Fiction[/URL]

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,094
    Quote Originally Posted by Dwarendele View Post
    And sending the Elfs to Helms Deep, or The Ring to Osgiliath wasn't?
    Of course they were dubious additions but the point was that one might have hoped that PJ might have learnt from the experience, in particular what sort of additions worked best. I'm not sure he has.

    I wasn’t trying to present a balanced view – my post is firmly tilted towards my opinion.
    All those IN CAPS phrases – all 4 of them, was to emphasize the differences between the story in a book and the story in a movie.
    And you couldn't do that without 'shouting'? Really, we can do without either extreme of view - either that all additions are bad *or* that they all make for a 'better' movie in some way, because it's quite obvious that neither is the case. Some changes or additions were very good indeed (my personal favourite how they took the words from Aragorn's thoughts regarding Eowyn and put them into Grima's mouth, where they became wonderfully creepy). Some were obviously needed for pacing reasons, or to make things understandable to a movie audience. Some, though, were awful and there was yet more awfulness to be found on the extended edition DVDs. Like I said, a mixed bag and we can expect the same again, I think. Plus a lot more of PJ's additions than before, because the material's been padded extensively in order to make it stretch across three whole movies, providing more opportunities for him to misstep. For comparson, LOTR is about a thousand pages long whereas The Hobbit is only 255; of course some of LOTR had to be left out in order to make it fit into even three long movies, but still that implies a lot more 'added ingredients' in the three new movies.

    I did – I gave a specific example, that in my opinion, the way they treated the timeline in the first part of FOTR was much better for the movie then what is in the book if presented in movie form. I did not mention gratuitous fight scenes or cinematic splashes of movie eye candy.
    Exactly, but then there's no mention of things like, say, Gandalf losing patience with Denethor and actually hitting him and knocking him flat (a distortion of character worse than what became of Faramir, and far less explicable), or the Enemy getting into Minas Tirith and having to be turfed out by the Dead and other such dubious additions that happened in ROTK. I personally reckoned FOTR as being the best of the three movies, and ROTK the worst (in relative terms).

    To give an example: they could invent Lurtz as a character in FOTR and that worked really well because this was a new character, with no baggage. I just loved how they introduced him and later that wonderful sneer he favoured Boromir with when he was getting ready to loose another arrow to finish him off; that one moment spoke volumes about Orcs in general, and Uruk-hai in particular. What I am not so keen on is the implication that they're trying to turn the long-dead Azog into a near-equivalent, in much the same role (bad-&&& Orc antagonist). It seems, well, to be leaning a bit too much towards generic fantasy to me and I'm a little leery about that because PJ wobbled before when he did that.

    I would not presume to tell anyone what they have to accept – I merely pointed out that I have come to accept certain additions as elements that make the movie better (for me) as a movie.
    You didn't qualify it by saying 'certain' additions. I'm sure there will be good additions but we have no idea where the balance will be this time around. YELLING IN ALL CAPS doesn't redress the balance, it just makes you look biased.

    Reviews – Resmiews: I could care less what jaded and cynical (or honest and thoughtful) reviewers, who have to sell newspapers, have to say – they almost never reflect my likes or dislikes. I'll hold out judgment for the only review that matters to me – my own.
    Well, you might want to listen to the reviewers in one respect, by avoiding the HFR version of the movie like the plague - apparently it makes the movie look like TV and this makes things look jarringly artificial. Besides, one thing I will say: reviews, along with word-of-mouth from friends and colleagues, are the antidote to hype and are hence great at spotting BS. (Without them, I might have gone to see Prometheus... 'nuff said).

    Oh, and I don't doubt this adaptation will be much better than previous attempts but that's not saying much. My main concern is that something vital (perhaps a certain charm) will be lost in bulking the book up to such an extent. And I certainly hope the standard of the Dwarf-related humour has improved over its last outing!

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    912
    Fair enough - though I wont debate what I didnt say and as far as my opinion being biased - well... duh!

    Nit-picking over a few caps and relating it to shouting, to stress that I'm talking about a movie and not a book is a stretch too, and it is just a distraction to what I said - I know net-etiquette just as well as the next guy - and my use here was not flaming or shouting. I also know debate tactics and I'll thank you for saving it for the next guy.

    But I actually think we agree on most points - even if we cant seem to put it in words we both can agree on, so ill leave it here and add only: I like Prometheus! Except for the ending - lol

    Take care
    Take Care,
    D.
    [URL="http://forums.lotro.com/showthread.php?496094-The-Brief-Mr.-Bako-Bongo-In-Soup-Du-Jour."]My LOTRO Comics and Fan-Fiction[/URL]

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    Some changes or additions were very good indeed (my personal favourite how they took the words from Aragorn's thoughts regarding Eowyn and put them into Grima's mouth, where they became wonderfully creepy). Some were obviously needed for pacing reasons, or to make things understandable to a movie audience. Some, though, were awful and there was yet more awfulness to be found on the extended edition DVDs. Like I said, a mixed bag and we can expect the same again, I think. Plus a lot more of PJ's additions than before, because the material's been padded extensively in order to make it stretch across three whole movies, providing more opportunities for him to misstep.
    Exactly my thoughts - I would have been happy with two movies in this case, less chance for the 'awful - why did you think you needed to do that ?' moments.
    [FONT=Trebuchet MS]"You can't fight the Enemy with his own Ring without turning into an Enemy" - J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter # 81


    [/FONT]

  13. #13
    I personally don't get it, either.

    I'm pretty forgiving of changes they think will make it more "movie friendly" but this one is just dumb. Azog is dead. The part he has in this movie could've easily been given to Bolg. In fact it would have been great if they did- fleshed out an obscure character in the story into a memorable villain.

    Whatever...I'm still looking forward to some dwarf vs. orc showdowns.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Mostly Middle Earth
    Posts
    715
    When was the last time any of you seen a movie that lived up to and was acurate to the book it was based on?
    (The only movie I've ever seen which was totally acurate to the book was "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas").
    All movie adaptations need to be taken for what they are: ADAPTATIONS.

    As a long time Tolkien fanatic, I was initally dissapointed with the LOTR trilogy due to the many changes that PJ made, but once you step back from the Lore and realise that it would be impossible to acurately make any of Tolkien's books into movies and accept the movies as adaptations then they are some of the best movies ever made (in my oppinion anyway), and they could have turned out a hell of a lot worse in someone elses hands.

    I've just got home from watching The Hobbit at the IMAX, and have got to say that it totally surpassed all of my expectations and are even considering going to watch it again tomorrow if possible. (It really was that good).
    Yes there are changes from the book to the movie, but they aren't as bad as the liberties taken with LOTR, and I think actually enhance the Hobbit. (So far anyway, can't wait 'till next year to see what they've done with Mirkwood).

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapold View Post
    When was the last time any of you seen a movie that lived up to and was acurate to the book it was based on?
    (The only movie I've ever seen which was totally acurate to the book was "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas").
    All movie adaptations need to be taken for what they are: ADAPTATIONS.

    As a long time Tolkien fanatic, I was initally dissapointed with the LOTR trilogy due to the many changes that PJ made, but once you step back from the Lore and realise that it would be impossible to acurately make any of Tolkien's books into movies and accept the movies as adaptations then they are some of the best movies ever made (in my oppinion anyway), and they could have turned out a hell of a lot worse in someone elses hands.

    I've just got home from watching The Hobbit at the IMAX, and have got to say that it totally surpassed all of my expectations and are even considering going to watch it again tomorrow if possible. (It really was that good).
    Yes there are changes from the book to the movie, but they aren't as bad as the liberties taken with LOTR, and I think actually enhance the Hobbit. (So far anyway, can't wait 'till next year to see what they've done with Mirkwood).
    I'm glad you posted Grap! This short review means more to me than some lame movie critic by far. An honest opinion from someone who has actually seen The Hobbit movie and is a lore fan as well. I totally agree with you about the LOTR movies too.

    I was going to go see the movies already of course, but now I am really looking forward to them!
    Today is a good day for Pie.

    Do not meddle in the affairs of Burglars, for they are subtle and quick to shank you.

  16. #16
    Thanks for the replies everyone.
    I'd just like to point out that my initial post actually was meant as a question or an expression of surprise at what I heard/read. I didn't mind the changes in the lotr-movies much either, or at least understood why they were done in most cases, thinking of an audience not familiar with the books, or to make them more "movie like"
    I was and still am looking forward to seeing The Hobbit, but got a bit worried from the info I found, regarding a character who is dead suddenly appearing (when his son might have filled that role) in the movie, which just stroke me as odd, and with the hints at gandalf having to find out the connection between Orc and the Necromancer, I was just hoping this wouldn't turn into some kind of zombie-type plot, where Sauron raised azog from the dead.
    There ofc always is an "adaption-factor", and ofc most of the time there are changes that often make sense, yet this kinda sounded a bit...outlandish. So, while looking forward to the movie, I was concerned it would be spoiled by changes that simply make no sense, like a dead character being resurrected to hunt the dwarfs.

    Anyway, thanks Grapold for the feedback, and I'm looking forward to seeing the movie, hopefully next week when work slows down

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    153
    I actually just got back from the movie and Azog is not a zombie! Thorin thought he was dead because he was "mortally wounded", but got better. I think the orc chase is going to end up being pretty controversial (less so than a few other things, such as Radagast) and I'm not 100% sure how I feel about it myself, but it does make the story less episodic. A constant nemesis makes it more of a cohesive story than a series of interwoven stories. I think I'm going to need at least a rewatch and possibly some outside analysis before I'm able to say if it was an improvement or not, though.
    [charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/062050000001bc373/01004/signature.png]undefined[/charsig]

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    28
    Yep I actually really liked Azog! First thing I thought when I saw him (after the flashback scenes at Azanulzibar) - Abu Qatada!!!

    I think the reason for having Azog lead the Orcs instead of Bolg is that this will allow a climactic fight scene between him and Thorin at the end of the film. Because Azog is already thought to be dead, Jackson can then kill him off in the fight scene. You know the audience will love a fight scene where Thorin kills Azog.

    So, how do we explain the fact that he is still running around although he is supposed to have been killed by Dain Ironfoot outside Moria?

    Well, we all know that that story about Azog being killed is based on what is recorded in the annals written by the dwarves. And we all know that dwarves love telling stories about their own exploits, and are not averse to a bit of embellishment. So maybe, just maybe, when Dain rushed up and cut off the head of an orc that he thought was Azog, he actually got another big orc instead, and the head that the dwarves put up on a stake to celebrate the death of Azog belonged to a different orc. After all, the heads of dead orcs are not really able to step up and say,

    "Ahem, you know, I am not really Azog, as you chaps seem to think. I'm actually his first cousin once removed, Bozog, hence the family resemblance."
    Free Miniature Printables for 28-32mm Scale

    http://noquarterbattles.blogspot.com/

  19. #19

    +++spoiler++++

    Saw the film last night.

    Honest opinion? Great film.

    ++ If you haven't watched the film, or do not want to know spoilers please read no further! +++

    Azog is indeed in the film. He chases Thorin and his merry band throughout, providing several fight scenes, looking very menacing and brutal and playing a very good evil Orc character. In fact, a lot of the film is not strictly very true to the book. I won't mention them all, but then anyone who has seen the LOTR Trilogy by Peter Jackson will know that he likes to change things.

    Tolkien himself was responsible for changing things in his own works, 'The Hobbit' being one of those he changed later in his life.

    I admit that I was initially one of those who was irked by the LOTR Fellowship etc. changes, but then I learnt to accept that this is re-interpreted for the big screen. There is no possible way it can be done in a manner that will appease everyone, so what we have to do as fans, is to separate the LOTR-Canon laid down by Tolkien in his works, and appreciate the Films made by PJ as a STAND ALONE entity(s). If you are able to do this, then I am sure you will enjoy the films very much, because honestly, as a film alone, "The Hobbit" is a great one and I am very much looking forward to the 2nd and 3rd parts.
    [charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/232210000000a821f/01003/signature.png]undefined[/charsig]

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Godonstilts View Post


    ...as a film alone, "The Hobbit" is a great one and I am very much looking forward to the 2nd and 3rd parts.
    ...towards the end, with the whole company looking out into the distance, I was thinking to myself -

    "Please no, don't let it end now, not just yet, just one more bit, please..."
    Free Miniature Printables for 28-32mm Scale

    http://noquarterbattles.blogspot.com/

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    43
    I have mixed feelings about the first Hobbit movie. It was generally a nice movie; the dwarves worked better on the screen than in pictures, Martin Freeman was an excellent Bilbo, the prologue and the Battle of Azanulbizar scenes were great, though the dwarves could've been a bit more fire resistant - Glaurung and the dwarves of Belegost, anyone? HFR wasn't as bad as some people had said, I didn't notice much change compared to the regular 24 fps. Some of the changes were reasonable, for example the fight scene with the trolls. Some weren't.

    First, Azog. He should've been dead, not chasing the company through the wilds. IMO the whole chase thing was stupid, done for the sake of making the movie longer to get some extra $. And if someone had to be after the company, it could've been Bolg, seeking revenge. He could've been defeated at the battle in the end, retreating to lick his wounds only to return in the Battle of Five Armies.

    Second, the added scenes. Why did there have to be so much fighting? Some were reasonable, as I said, but I don't think so about the rest. The battle after the Misty Mountains was somewhat working in the movie; Thorin, facing inevitable death, charges at his foes for the last time to die gloriously. But the Goblin-town thing was entirely too stretched out, not to mention its weird portrayal, with all the bridges and stuff. The book version with just all the lights going out could've worked better. The Great Goblin also wasn't exactly how I had pictured him, the voice fitted the movie character well though. And why was a special crystal table on a ledge near the waterfalls needed to read moon-runes? The way the dwarves came to Rivendell was dumb.
    And what was with the abundance of laws of physics? Bilbo had a long fall to a dark chasm with a goblin, not getting a single bruise, while the goblin, barely surviving, was unable to move. I didn't think mushrooms were that soft to land on. Even the dwarves rolled/fell down the tunnel-thing without any long-lasting injuries.

    Third, character altering. Especially Radagast. One could think he wasn't as exalted as Gandalf or Saruman, but bird poop on his head? His silliness was IMO way overdone. Speaking of wizards, why was Gandalf so unhappy to see Saruman? Didn't think it was that bad before the others found out about his treachery. Galadriel was also somehow weirdly mystified, always standing against the sunrise dress perfectly, speaking in an etheric voice, even completely disappearing after the conversation with Gandalf. Thorin, while quite well done in other ways, could've used a little more beard, as well as some other members of the company. Gollum's better side got more than enough screen time - these were, after all, the times when he still had (or hadn't been long parted of) the Ring and the worse side was in control.

    Overall the movie was nice, in my opinion. I'd give it a 3/5 rating. The dwarf cast was nice and the scenery awesome, as were the costumes. I have voiced my main complaints, but don't trust my blabbering as I was back from the theatre at 5am and am by no means an expert critic.

    One last point of criricism. Why, why was the food in Rivendell so green? Elves ate meat, too!

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    3,712
    I'm not quite enough of a lore junkie to care too much about Azog, but I did find myself wondering:

    How the heck did those rabbits have so much energy? They had just, presumably, pulled Radagast from Dol Guldur to the Trollshaws (about 300 miles). To take the wargs on that merry chase must have taken a lot of lettuce and carrot fuel!

    Work like no one is watching, dance like you don't need the money...

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,094
    Quote Originally Posted by Godonstilts View Post
    I admit that I was initially one of those who was irked by the LOTR Fellowship etc. changes, but then I learnt to accept that this is re-interpreted for the big screen. There is no possible way it can be done in a manner that will appease everyone, so what we have to do as fans, is to separate the LOTR-Canon laid down by Tolkien in his works, and appreciate the Films made by PJ as a STAND ALONE entity(s). If you are able to do this, then I am sure you will enjoy the films very much, because honestly, as a film alone, "The Hobbit" is a great one and I am very much looking forward to the 2nd and 3rd parts.
    No, what we have to do as fans is recognise when PJ is taking the mickey. Honestly, I've never heard such tripe as trying to pretend that something that's billed as an adaptation of a book is somehow completely stand-alone, just so as to make an excuse for that. Having a character being alive who was supposed to have had his damn head cut off is a bit much!

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    146
    Nothing really upset me in LOTR. Only real exception was the witch-king breaking Gandalf's staff. But that was in the extended DVD.

    Overall the Hobbit was good. I complained about appearances of the dwarves especially Thorin (literally doesn't look like he aged a day from the fall of Erebor to reclaiming Erebor. Plus short beard) Only 2 things about the storyline irked me in this movie though.

    1. Battle of Azanulbizar: Would have been easy to change the storyline in an acceptable manner IMO. Could have had Nain being beheaded then Thorin and Dain rush Azog's position. Thorin gets his surname during this event against orcs defending Azog and then Dain takes Azog's head off while his son Bolg retreats into Moria. Bolg could be setup as the main villian for the first and third movies. This could have showcased how the two great Dwarf heroes during this time made their first renown (both being important characters in the Hobbit). Yes I took some liberty with the story but I believe it is better than the path Jackson and Fran Walsh took.

    2. The garbage at the end of the movie where Thorin goes suicide mode into Azog. No need to shame Thorin to give Bilbo the sense of being a hero. Bilbo gets his respect from wit and cunning (like being responsible for the escape of the Dwarves captured by Thranduil, not brute force). I expected the first movie to be the Gandalf show as it should have been. Bailing the Dwarves and Bilbo out at the Trolls, Goblin Town, and against the wargs (with the help of the eagles). Just keep it the same as it is written in the book. Wargs tree the company and the Eagles come and rescue them.

    Things I did like that they took liberty with was showing a distinction of importance between the Dwarves. Balin, Dwalin, Oin, Gloin, and Thorin are the warriors with Fili and Kili growing into these roles.

    Having scenes of the Battle of Azanulbizar was epic even if it wasn't the way it should have been told. Dwarves are my favorite race and seeing this was gut wrenching and exciting. As an American similar feelings to seeing, Omaha beach or Gettysburg. (yea I know I probably care too much about fictional characters)

    Overall I enjoyed seeing this brought to life even with my few complaints.
    Last edited by Fernur; Dec 14 2012 at 12:24 PM.

  25. #25
    I am really annoyed as my name sake doesnt make it to the end of the movie

 

 
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload