We have detected that cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please enable cookies to ensure the proper experience.
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 106
  1. #26
    I loved this film, but it wasn't perfect. (Spoilers beyond this point, for those who haven't seen it yet)

    I'm still a little unsure of the much more upbeat and lighthearted attitude of the film. I know that's very much in keeping with the books, but it made the film seem a little childish at times. Also only a couple of the dwarves got any speaking lines (Did Bombur speak at all? I never noticed).

    I loved Martin Freeman, he was fantastic, nailed the role perfectly, and Ian McKellen is as good as ever (although I don't think their magic post-processing anti-ageing cream worked perfectly >___>).

    I thought the prologue was brilliant, it filled the viewer in with the backstory without being dragged out with too much exposition and name-dropping (which, let's be honest, can be a problem with Tolkien's works ).

    Azog didn't really bother me too much to be honest, I have to say, I was a bit confused on the timelines so couldn't remember if he was supposed to have died yet. Since he should be dead I suppose it isn't perfect, but he looks brilliant and I suppose it's a requirement to have some bad guy around to keep the pace of the film up.

    Radagast is probably my biggest complaint. Reminds me of a Disney character or something. I understand he probably was a bit eccentric, but I think it went a bit too far to be honest.

    Talking of "went a bit too far", I never thought I'd say this, but I really thought the film was too long. To me a logical ending would've been when they escaped from Goblin-Town, you had the climatic finish to the film, and everyone regrouping ready for the next leg, but maybe that's just me.

    I'm not entirely sure why it showed Gandalf looking ominously at Bilbo's pocket when Thorin asked him how he escaped. Surely Gandalf did not know it was the One Ring, even when Bilbo announced he had a ring at all, which he hadn't yet. Also, an unrelated point, but I loved the Trolls. They were great.

    All in all, I loved the film, and I can't wait for next year now. In fact, I'm most likely gonna see this one again at least once while it's in the cinema. That being said, I have a little niggling doubt about how the other two will turn out (especially in the eyes of the critics, not that that matters for my personal opinion of the films of course)

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Taconic Mountains
    Posts
    763
    In the film The Hobbit, Peter Jackson made a number of departures from the Tolkien mythology, some of them serious. You can read about them at the Wikia article The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    3,713
    Quote Originally Posted by gradivus View Post
    In the film The Hobbit, Peter Jackson made a number of departures from the Tolkien mythology, some of them serious. You can read about them at the Wikia article The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.
    You lost me at "serious". Tolkien was just a guy, not a demigod. The Hobbit was a nice, fun book, but not exactly a paragon of literature. If the movie had been as simple and made-for-kids as the book, it would not have been half as enjoyable, for me.

    I like that they made it more like LOTR. If I want a simple story with little suspense, I'll go back and read the book (which I do like).
    [color=red]Work like no one is watching, dance like you don't need the money...[/color]

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    5,985
    Quote Originally Posted by Frisco View Post
    You lost me at "serious".
    Evidently because you didn't bother to read that page he linked to.

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    183
    All of you posting reviews are making me jealous! I work at a movie theater and had to work the midnight showing. I was going to watch the movie after work (around 3am) but what with one thing and another didn't end up getting off work until after 5am so I didn't get to watch it. And now I'm not going to get a chance to watch it until Saturday. I cannot wait to see it!!!

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    3,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    Evidently because you didn't bother to read that page he linked to.
    Nah, it's because I don't believe that movie adaptations of books need to be, nor should be, word for word remakes of the books. And I can't think of anything in young adult fantasy that I'd think of as serious. Oh no, a kids' book written 50 years ago said this fake orc got beheaded, but in the movie, he was just de-armed! Oh, the humanity!
    [color=red]Work like no one is watching, dance like you don't need the money...[/color]

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    5,985
    Quote Originally Posted by Frisco View Post
    Nah, it's because I don't believe that movie adaptations of books need to be, nor should be, word for word remakes of the books. And I can't think of anything in young adult fantasy that I'd think of as serious. Oh no, a kids' book written 50 years ago said this fake orc got beheaded, but in the movie, he was just de-armed! Oh, the humanity!
    And you still haven't read that page, by the looks of things. (Hint: it refers to something that's not from The Hobbit at all, so why you're blathering about 'young adult fantasy' etc. is beyond me). Oh, and Azog was killed off in the account of the Battle of Azanulbizar that was in the Appendices to LOTR so again, not in The Hobbit and again, it's LOTR that PJ is actually messing with.

    So let me guess, it was TL;DR?

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Taconic Mountains
    Posts
    763
    The beginning sequence, with Bilbo telling Frodo about his adventure to the Lonely Mountain, confused me. Apparently, it was supposed to take place just before the events of Lord of the Ring, but Ian Holm looked so much older and (especially) fatter than he had in that film (Frodo looked older, too), that at first I couldn't place when the incident was supposed to have happened, and I found it hard to suspend my disbelief.


    Gandalf also looked a bit older and wrinkly (with a fuller beard) than in the earlier trilogy, but since Gandalf was a Maia and could (possibly) change his appearance, I was prepared to believe that 60 years later he had decided to look a bit younger.


    On the other hand, Hugo Weaving (Elrond) and (especially) Cate Blanchett as Galadriel, looked about the same as they had a decade earlier, which (especially in Blanchett's case), I found wonderful.

    P.S. - I didn't find the result of the 48 fps filming to be odd or distracting at all.
    Last edited by gradivus; Dec 14 2012 at 08:59 PM.

  9. #34
    ***MINI SPOILER***

    Does anyone know if Azog or Bolg were ever actually given their 'Pale Orc' nickname?

    I'm having an argument/debate with a friend about whether Tolkien actually specifically referred to 'pale orcs' at any point?

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,425
    Quote Originally Posted by Faffar View Post
    ***MINI SPOILER***

    Does anyone know if Azog or Bolg were ever actually given their 'Pale Orc' nickname?

    I'm having an argument/debate with a friend about whether Tolkien actually specifically referred to 'pale orcs' at any point?
    I don't know about that, but in my opinion the movie takes the idea of "pale orc" too far.

    Visually, the appearance of Azog is not very orc-ish, much more humanoid, and bears an unfortunate similarity to another recent movie villain. A few scars, lots of muscles, but way too pale, very flat nose. I started thinking of him as "Voldemorc".

    Not one of Weta's better visualizations, for me.
    Last edited by ShireDweller; Dec 15 2012 at 05:13 PM. Reason: can't spell
    “All that is gold does not glitter,
    Not all those who wander are lost;
    The old that is strong does not wither,
    Deep roots are not reached by the frost."

  11. #36
    Well...in GENERAL I think the movie is more like the book than ANY Lotr movie...I LOVED the beginning with Gandalf and Bilbo...Also that they mentioned some places that only fans are able to know...Riddles in the dark was AWESOME.


    Azog well...hm...It COULD be cool you know? Gives Thorin a bit "more"..cannot put the finger on what " more " is xD But it takes some time to get to Smaug and it is good for the "drama" to have a villian here that killed his father and so on...I LOVE Thorin btw even though I first thought : THIS CANNOT BEE ?!!! THE WAY HE LOOOKS!!
    But I like his character very much now...


    Yeah the real story would maybe be better...but...I think there is enough fan service in the movie.


    The only thing I didn't like is that the eagles didn't talk....They should...they are special...
    Last edited by Hildilas; Dec 15 2012 at 04:59 PM.

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Gibraltar where the apes are smarter than the people!
    Posts
    255
    The only annoyance which comes from this is why Jackson chose Azog instead of Blog. Though I feel that the character is indeed irrelevant (being that both Orcs aren't fleshed out in anyway possible to make them important, other than their impact on the lore.)

    This whole ruckus would have been avoided if Azog was named Blog. It was just that simple. I think the addition was perfect for the pace of the film. On one hand, the mood was much lighter than any of the LOTR films, and so there were things added to balance it out. Or else it would have gotten too silly.

    Yet, on the other hand, it's important for Thorin's character. My main critique for Tolkien is that his characters can be 'cardboard stiff' at times. Thorin's only development in the novel was his redemption at the end; overall, he wasn't a very interesting character. In the movie, he's a perfect blend of his 'book' self, and LOTR's Aragorn. A much needed addition to the cast in order to mellow things down.

    Blog would have been too impersonal to have been a direct 'black' to Thorin's 'white.' And no, I don't think that Orcs are the kind of monsters that care much about their father.

    As a side note... any good essays on Tolkien's characters? I may feel that they are cardboard stiff, but that may be me just being ignorant. And I'd rather be educated than remain ignorant. So if anyone has an essay linked on someone like Aragorn (who I thought was no where near as great as PJ's) it'd be much appreciated.

    The only thing I didn't like is that the eagles didn't talk....They should...they are special...
    Who knows... they might in part two. I think it would have been anti-climactic if we were to sit through another conversation. Not that I would have enjoyed it. I was dying for more. I'm just thinking in a cinematic sense.

    Visually, the appearance of Azog is not very orc-ish, much more humanoid, and bears an unfortunate similarity to another recent movie villain. A few scars, lots of muscles, but way too pale, very flat nose. I started thinking of him as "Voldemorc".
    What constitutes orcish? I think that he was visualised perfectly for that 'alpha' role he was to play. I find it hard to believe that a whole army of orcs would be lead by someone of similar stature.

    And as for 'lots of muscles...' you make him sound like someone from 300 xD

    The beginning sequence, with Bilbo telling Frodo about his adventure to the Lonely Mountain, confused me. Apparently, it was supposed to take place just before the events of Lord of the Ring, but Ian Holm looked so much older and (especially) fatter than he had in that film (Frodo looked older, too), that at first I couldn't place when the incident was supposed to have happened, and I found it hard to suspend my disbelief.


    Gandalf also looked a bit older and wrinkly (with a fuller beard) than in the earlier trilogy, but since Gandalf was a Maia and could (possibly) change his appearance, I was prepared to believe that 60 years later he had decided to look a bit younger.


    On the other hand, Hugo Weaving (Elrond) and (especially) Cate Blanchett as Galadriel, looked about the same as they had a decade earlier, which (especially in Blanchett's case), I found wonderful.
    People age... some better than others. Too much 'make up' and you create something unbelievable; too little, and there's no point.

    Also only a couple of the dwarves got any speaking lines (Did Bombur speak at all? I never noticed).
    No he didn't. Still, fleshing out 13 dwarves is hard enough when you have two characters thatrequire alot of focus on. I'm sure they'll get lines soon enough. Perhaps they'll just need to wait their turn.

    Radagast is probably my biggest complaint. Reminds me of a Disney character or something. I understand he probably was a bit eccentric, but I think it went a bit too far to be honest.
    Aye, he puts me off. I understand his solitary life makes him...awkward. But to that point? He lived in Valinor for God knows how long. He shouldn't be like that at all. Though for the part he was supposed to play, Sylvester did a great job.

    I'm not entirely sure why it showed Gandalf looking ominously at Bilbo's pocket when Thorin asked him how he escaped. Surely Gandalf did not know it was the One Ring, even when Bilbo announced he had a ring at all, which he hadn't yet.
    I think it just ties in a little to the LOTR trilogy.

    . 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.
    They needed to spotlight Thorin. He's a main character and requires attention. Even if it means making his role larger and deviating from the lore. Dain does not appear until the end, and the audience needs that presence of a great leader. Not the greedy pillock he was in the book.

    [quote]. IMO the whole chase thing was stupid, done for the sake of making the movie longer to get some extra $.[quote]

    Why does everyone in the internet perceive the worst in things? If PJ wanted to make big bucks he could have done a better job. Pace isvery important with cinema. You will not believe how many people still tell me that the Hobbit was boring a long with the LOTR trilogy.

    "Too much talking"
    "Too long"
    "Too slow"

    All comments ranging from kids to adults. Sure, money was in there along with a hundred different reasons. I'm quite the cynic at times, I've always believed that even good deeds have bad intentions in there. In this case, you're probably right. But as a director, he also knew the importance of having those action sequences.

    Did you know that Helms Deep was supposed to be longer, but PJ felt it would have been too much.

    Grabbing the attention of an audience who may or may not have read the books, or are even fans of Tolkien himself is quite the feat. I don't think I, or any of us will ever be able to understand unless someone here studies this topic profoundly.


    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.
    It's interesting that you feel that some fight scenes were reasonable, but the place where the 'big showdown' was supposed to occur felt stretched out.

    I felt it was the perfect mix of suspension via dialogue (Bilbo vs Smeagol) and action.

    . 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.
    I thought that scene was gorgeous. The practicality of it all was just blown away by the sheer beauty of the scene. Say what you will of Peter, he is a marvellous visual director.

    As for the way they got in? Yeah, it was dumb. But the same way scenes were used to stretch out the film; others were done to make it shorter. Still, the way Thorin was reluctant to speak to the elves kind of made the detour necessary. If not, we would have had a 30min scene of Gandalf and Thorin going at it xD

    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.
    I think 'likes' is the wrong word. More like, he 'has' to change things. Of course, what I'm saying is very general. I bet Peter likes the changes he makes, but the very reason for changing them isn't because he enjoys it, but because he has no other choice. Concerning the narrative, of course. Character changes are another thing.

    I actually just got back from the movie and Azog is not a zombie!
    Wait? People here think he's a Zombie...

    Oh &&&&, sudden revelation I hope is not true. Do you think think emphasis on 'bringing back the dead' is foreshadowing a ludicrous plot twist?
    Last edited by Floin; Dec 15 2012 at 08:28 PM.

  13. #38
    Obviously, someone read the wiki article and allowed the word "serious" to get stuck in their head. That's a highly subjective observation that shouldn't be made in a hypothetically objective review, not that there is such a thing.

    Differences between books and their movie adapations will always happen. How "serious" they are is in the eye of the individual beholder. My idea of "serious"? Galadriel and Gandalf in bed together, or something equally daft. Absolutely nothing shown in the film gave me a sense of "Hobbit In Name Only". The Azog/Bolg thing is odd, but it didn't break anything for me. YMMV, but you'll have to go see it and figure that out for yourself, rather than letting some purist kvetch in your ear.
    The navigation throughout the LotRO site is horrible. You can quote me on that.
    [color=green]You say "[i]Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn[/i]" like it's a bad thing...[/color]

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    5,985
    Quote Originally Posted by Ashrellion View Post
    Obviously, someone read the wiki article and allowed the word "serious" to get stuck in their head. That's a highly subjective observation that shouldn't be made in a hypothetically objective review, not that there is such a thing.

    Differences between books and their movie adapations will always happen. How "serious" they are is in the eye of the individual beholder. My idea of "serious"? Galadriel and Gandalf in bed together, or something equally daft. Absolutely nothing shown in the film gave me a sense of "Hobbit In Name Only". The Azog/Bolg thing is odd, but it didn't break anything for me. YMMV, but you'll have to go see it and figure that out for yourself, rather than letting some purist kvetch in your ear.
    Oh, stop making excuses. Saying 'differences... will always happen' is a catch-all that says nothing about whether the changes are good or bad, inspired or trashy, and when we have PJ needlessly messing with something fundamental (the Witch-king's fate) that's not funny. The WiKi was supposed to have got away when the armies of Angmar were defeated, they didn't pursue him because Glorfindel foresaw that he wouldn't return to Angmar, that his fate still lay far off, and that no man would kill him. Remember that bit? That turns out to be rather significant later on, yes? So for 'serious' you can read 'major', because that's what it is.

    The Azog thing should break something for you, lore if nothing else seeing as he got his head cut off, in canon. Let me guess... he was dead and then he got better? 'Twas but a scratch?

    YMMV all right... particularly if you're tolerant of lazy writing and the sort of generic fantasy that tended to creep into the LOTR movies whenever PJ felt like being all 'creative'. Like in the extended editions when they had Saruman hurling a fireball at Gandalf, as one infamous example.

  15. #40
    Well I have seen it now and have to say I am pleased to have my name sake all through the film.

    So what if it is not exactly as written by JRR, it is not meant to be it is a film

    Long Live Azog!!!!

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Gibraltar where the apes are smarter than the people!
    Posts
    255
    Saying 'differences... will always happen' is a catch-all that says nothing about whether the changes are good or bad, inspired or trashy
    The problem is that what is perceived as 'good' and 'bad' is subjective. Christopher Lee, a man who met Tolkien in person thought some of the changes made were for the better...and some for the worse. Perhaps he meant it purley for cinema? Who knows, I just know he did say that.

    If you're looking for a source, I can't be specific (typical, right?) Just that it's in the 'making-of' DVDs in the Extended Cut of LOTR.

    and when we have PJ needlessly messing with something fundamental (the Witch-king's fate) that's not funny.
    Good catch. That was sloppy. I was a little puzzled when she mentioned something about the Witch-King being buried... I haven't read any Tolkien books in a long time, or even played LOTRO from that matter. So when she said that, I thought I had missed something.

    The Azog thing should break something for you, lore if nothing else seeing as he got his head cut off, in canon. Let me guess... he was dead and then he got better? 'Twas but a scratch?
    I won't argue on changes; adaptations or needless other things you've heard a thousand times but have never concluded. But for this, I'll give it my best.

    Azog is not significant. His role is to be defeated and that's it. Whether him being alive or not is irrelevant, for as long as the orcs were defeated and driven back into Moria, the part was played.

    Now, as I've said, there was no reason to not include Blog. In fact, I think Peter missed a golden opportunity to appease to the lore nuts/purists. Whether Blog or Azog, the part played in the narrative is set.

    So why include him? Well, I've mentioned pace 10000000 times before, but that's hardly convincing. I feel that there was a lack of urgency in Thorin's quest. Apart from the moments where there *was* danger, the feeling of being chased by some hidden enemy made their quest quite a trifling matter. Not the goal, though, God forbid I tell you that their quest was stupid. I meant the journey. Azog is to the Dwarves as the Nazgul were to the Fellowship. The reason it was Azog, and not Barkish; Grilgash; Nangid or any other Orc named you wished to conceive is to create a solid antagonist for Thorin. A rival. A 'Joker' to Thorin's 'Batman' if you get my meaning.

    Yes, cash was probably involved there too. But I seriously doubt the man who let go 10 million for a bloody cinema is a corporate miser who wishes nothing more than to defile Tolkien's work.

    I'll spare you the 'I enjoy them as spiritual adaptations' speech too, hehe

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    5,985
    Quote Originally Posted by Floin View Post
    The problem is that what is perceived as 'good' and 'bad' is subjective. Christopher Lee, a man who met Tolkien in person thought some of the changes made were for the better...and some for the worse. Perhaps he meant it purley for cinema? Who knows, I just know he did say that.

    If you're looking for a source, I can't be specific (typical, right?) Just that it's in the 'making-of' DVDs in the Extended Cut of LOTR.
    Yes, 'and some for the worse'. But you wouldn't think that to hear some people talk.

    Good catch. That was sloppy. I was a little puzzled when she mentioned something about the Witch-King being buried... I haven't read any Tolkien books in a long time, or even played LOTRO from that matter. So when she said that, I thought I had missed something.
    Okay, so you can see now why I was a trifle miffed. Here's the thing: I don't mind PJ making changes as long as they add something artistic, or genuinely funny at a moment where some levity is needed (or other times if it's harmless), or pretty much anything that's inventive in a good way and passably Tolkienesque rather than being stereotypical fantasy. What I don't like is him cheesing things up. If you've seen the extended editions then you'll have seen 'that scene' with all the skulls, and maybe the 'making of' clip for that as well. Sometimes PJ just does not know where to stop ("More skulls! More skulls!"), and then he annoys me because most of the time he seems smarter than that... and then *pow* it's "Nobody tosses a Dwarf!" or some damn-fool thing.

    Azog is not significant. His role is to be defeated and that's it. Whether him being alive or not is irrelevant, for as long as the orcs were defeated and driven back into Moria, the part was played.
    So why him in particular, then? The name only has recognition value for those who've read the Appendices to LOTR (so comparatively few) and the only thing it would prompt from them is the sort of head-scratching we've had here, the "Huh? Hadn't Dain already killed him?" thing. So thirty seconds coming up with another name for an Orc and everyone would accept it.

    Now, as I've said, there was no reason to not include Blog. In fact, I think Peter missed a golden opportunity to appease to the lore nuts/purists. Whether Blog or Azog, the part played in the narrative is set.
    Oh, I'm sure Bolg will turn up on schedule for the Battle of Five Armies and be extra-annoyed because someone killed his old man. Thing is, the Goblins were supposed to be extra-annoyed already so I don't see what that might add. PJ readily created a brand-new character (Lurtz) for FOTR, so why not invent a new badass Orc again rather than poach an already dead one? I fully appreciate the need for the character, the role he plays in the movie, just not that character's chosen identity.

    I'll spare you the 'I enjoy them as spiritual adaptations' speech too, hehe
    Good, then I won't have to pound you with my thumping pole, or send you down the hall to roll

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Himring
    Posts
    713
    Oh what a black day, I ignored the spoiler warning and find myself in sympathy with Radhruin.

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    912
    I think some people just take the book, the movie and themselves way to serious....

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Gibraltar where the apes are smarter than the people!
    Posts
    255
    So why him in particular, then? The name only has recognition value for those who've read the Appendices to LOTR (so comparatively few) and the only thing it would prompt from them is the sort of head-scratching we've had here, the "Huh? Hadn't Dain already killed him?" thing. So thirty seconds coming up with another name for an Orc and everyone would accept it.
    Perhaps, in the same way he slipped appeasing Tolkienites with Blog, he tried to use Azog as a nice reference to the past. Of course, having Thorin defeating Azog was acceptable (I feel.) He is a main character, and defeating the 'big bad' is just psychological audience manipulation: we root for him even more. At the time, the big bad happened to be Azog, not Blog.

    The reasons for keeping Azog I've discussed, so there is really no need to say it again.

    It was going to be a lose, lose situation in way. Maybe not you, but someone will still have hated the idea of orcs persuing Thorin on his quest. Whatever Jackson did to pick up the pace, the addition itself will have been frowned upon anyway. It would have been futile to add a new 'Lurtz' to the narrative.

    I guess some Tolkien fans are more open than others. I love the movies and the books (though I've only read a few volumes of HOME, and barley in detail.) My uncle is another, and he is Tolkien-mad. And I must admit, for one who has such a profound knowledge on Arda, you're quite open to the films too xD

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    In-game
    Posts
    3,697
    I loved the movie, people can whine as much as they want. nobody forces them to watch the movie. Azog fills the role well and its a nice story between him and Thorin. take it or leave it

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    1,395
    The movie was pretty good, regardless of what the critics said.

    Changing Bolg into Azog really wasn't such a huge deal. The plot remains mainly the same, it's just a different name. Even though it does break canon.
    They probably found it better to make it be Azog instead of Bolg. Otherwise they would have had to introduce Dain earlier. But then it wouldn't make much sense for Bolg to have a vendetta against Thorin, it would be directed at Dain. They could have had Thorin kill Azog instead, and then have to explain Bolg's existance. How they did it was probably easier, and maybe cheaper.


    Radagast should not have been added. They completely destroyed his character. A hobo with a bird's nest on his head and bird poo running down his face... And that sleigh... ugh.
    Plus now we don't have an explanation as to how Gandalf came across the key.


    Bilbo's fall into Gollum's cave was softened by the mushrooms, but also by a rope he was holding on to while he was falling.

    They did pay some attention to detail, though. They even had Bilbo losing his buttons! And goblin town looked awesome.


    As for Bilbo seeing the ring fall from Gollum's pocket. He didn't. The audience did. Bilbo simply noticed the ring accidentally on the floor by Sting's light. Notice the classic "glimpse down for half a second then look at the item" action.
    [charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/0b20c0000000b3969/01007/signature.png]Minarfin[/charsig]

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1

    Re: Azog?!?

    First, maybe you should wait to actually see the movie before you start trying to figure out the why's and wherefore's of the plot, since, as you mention, the reviewers don't always have the original story right, and the description you quoted sounds like they didn't pay attention during the movie and just grabbed at a few bits. LOL

    As for Azog, in the books we all know it was Bolg(the son of Azog) who led the Goblin army in the Battle of Five Armies, and that Azog was killed in battle with the Dwarves before the gates of Moria. However, I think what PJ is doing is using Azog in place of Bolg. He is probably trying to keep down the number of characters to bring in(lots of characters in the Hobbit and with adding in Gandalf's other side exploits...well lots and lots of names for people to learn, and many of the movie goers might not have read the books). So, one less enemy name/face to learn. Also, from a movie standpoint, especially with this being divided into 3 movies, PJ probably felt that Azog could not just suddenly show up at the end, leading an army against the Men, Elves and Dwarves, as a lot of non-book readers would go "who's he now? What?", and you risk loosing their attention. As for the connection between Azog and Sauron(The Necromancer), they are saying in the movie that Azog was badly injured and that "he must have died from his injuries years ago", but as the audience you realize quickly that that assumption was wrong and that he has simply survived and is now out to kill Thorin. The connection the reviewer is talking about is only implied in the movie by Gandalf saying that something dark is at work and basically hinting that he thinks there is someone directing the resurgence of evil creatures.

    We have to remember when seeing these movies, this is one interpretation of the story, based from the book and other source materials(Lost Tales, Unfinished Tales, RoTK Appendices, etc.) and is not going to be, and is not meant to be, EXACTLY THE SAME as The Hobbit book. No book turned into a movie is, they are BASED ON, so there should be no debate of "what about cannon?", it's it's own creature, and meant to be that way. That said, I think PJ and crew have done a good job at keeping enough things from the book to please, at least for me, my "inner geek" that gets a bit gushy when there are whole passages of dialogue that are nearly EXACT quotes. Also, I have to ask the people talking about "They destroyed Radagast's character!"...when did we ever see Radagast's character in the books?? In reality, Radagast was usually used ONLY as a name that would fill in a needed gap to make something happen...Gandalf mentions him ONCE in The Hobbit book, and in LoTR he only appears ONCE, and that is in retrospect as Gandalf is telling the Council of Elrond why he went to Isengard. Other than that, we have very very little information about Radagast, unless you count Sauruman calling him "Radagast the bird tamer, Radagast the fool!" in LoTR, again via Gandalf's description in retrospect. So to be honest, there is no character to make or break! LOL I found him to be humorous and well done for the way they wrote him, which they could have done ANYTHING with his character really, and not gone off the mark.

    My suggestion, go see the movie, it is excellently done I think. However, leave your expectations at the door of it being an exact rendering of book to screen(anyone that goes to a movie based on any book with that expectation is doomed to be disappointed) sit back and enjoy.

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    28

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    And you still haven't read that page, by the looks of things. (Hint: it refers to something that's not from The Hobbit at all, so why you're blathering about 'young adult fantasy' etc. is beyond me). Oh, and Azog was killed off in the account of the Battle of Azanulbizar that was in the Appendices to LOTR so again, not in The Hobbit and again, it's LOTR that PJ is actually messing with.

    So let me guess, it was TL;DR?
    While you are simply missing his point, which is that these are, after all, only storybooks, and that any deviation from them in the film version can hardly be considered "serious" by a mature adult. Really, its not as though he made a film about the Gospel story and left out the Crucifixion.
    Free Miniature Printables for 28-32mm Scale

    http://noquarterbattles.blogspot.com/

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Geltharin View Post

    My suggestion, go see the movie, it is excellently done I think. However, leave your expectations at the door of it being an exact rendering of book to screen(anyone that goes to a movie based on any book with that expectation is doomed to be disappointed) sit back and enjoy.
    That.

    Playwrights have been messing around with older stories since Sophocles did it to Homer. No reason why film producers should not do the same.
    Free Miniature Printables for 28-32mm Scale

    http://noquarterbattles.blogspot.com/

 

 
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 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