|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Azog
Bree
Dec 4 2012, 9:21pm
Post #26 of 46
(736 views)
Shortcut
|
The plot thickens,not long to wait I suppose!
|
|
|
backpackin'man
Registered User
Dec 4 2012, 9:26pm
Post #27 of 46
(733 views)
Shortcut
|
|
i suppose it is all sort of exciting
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
the idea of the necromancer resurrecting Azog
|
|
|
backpackin'man
Registered User
Dec 4 2012, 9:29pm
Post #29 of 46
(727 views)
Shortcut
|
I will always love the books....the question is will i love the movies as well? these deviations have me a bit concerned
|
|
|
YaznegSouth40
Rivendell
Dec 4 2012, 9:39pm
Post #30 of 46
(721 views)
Shortcut
|
they decided to make Azog a CGI character and have an actor(Conan Stevens) for Bolg? Manu Bennett portraying Azog has a muscular athletic body as Stevens does, only he's no where near as huge a guy ( 5'11 to 7'1 ) . I figured that Azog's head or face was CGI to make use of Bennett's body. I read somewhere where he said it's only his face being CGI. They would need special effects to make him as huge as Bolg much like they will have to do to make Persbrandt a huge Beorn and in reverse a 6'2 Armitage a 5' dwarf.
|
|
|
Ave Moria
Rivendell
Dec 4 2012, 9:40pm
Post #31 of 46
(737 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Possible answer to the riddle?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Based on what people are saying, I think I have a solution-
Bolg was originally meant to be the primary Orc villain and was played by Conan Stevens. When 2 films became 3, PJ realized to give the Orc villain better motivation and a personal vendetta against the dwarves, particularly Thorin, he replaced Bolg with Azog, allowing him to become maimed instead of beheaded. This gives him the motivation to go after Thorin and Co, instead of just being an evil Orc out to kill Dwarves in a generic sense.
Then, PJ realizes with this Orc having such a presence, he needs to be able to have some dialogue and emote beyond what Conan Stevens was able to do, hence the recasting? of Manu. Hence the CG, allowing for custom character performance based off key frame animation and motion capture.
In short, Conan perhaps lacks the chops to play Azog like PJ wanted, so he opted for motion capture CG to flesh out his personality more, once PJ expanded the films realizing that since Sauron will have a small presence in Dol Guldur, he needed a more impactful villain since Dol is full of Orcs anyway, so why not have a bad to the bone Orc leader?
|
|
|
YaznegSouth40
Rivendell
Dec 4 2012, 9:52pm
Post #32 of 46
(687 views)
Shortcut
|
So Azog perhaps will have more agility as in riding Wargs(albeit a much more massive white warg) and such and Bolg will be a foe faced one on one in Dol Guldur as Azog's really second in command. However I do believe both will be at the Battle of Five Armies in There and Back Again as both are slated to appear in the next two films as well.
|
|
|
redgiraffe
Rohan
Dec 4 2012, 9:55pm
Post #33 of 46
(702 views)
Shortcut
|
|
This is what I don't really understand
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Bolg was originally meant to be the primary Orc villain and was played by Conan Stevens. When 2 films became 3, PJ realized to give the Orc villain better motivation and a personal vendetta against the dwarves, particularly Thorin, he replaced Bolg with Azog, allowing him to become maimed instead of beheaded. This gives him the motivation to go after Thorin and Co, instead of just being an evil Orc out to kill Dwarves in a generic sense.
This is just me assuming that your er... assumption is correct.
Again, I will reserve judgement until I've seen it all but here's my opinion on this so far:
First, I don't see how adding on another movie would create a need to change it. If it would have worked for 2 movies, then why wouldn't it work for 3?
Secondly, PJ could have easily played up the personal vendetta between Bolg and Thorin without the need to change the story. Bolg's father (Azog) killed Thorin's grandfather (Thror). And the end result of it (after the personal vendetta inducing orc/dwarf wars) was that Thorin's kinsman (Dain) killed Bolg's father (Azog). This could be a perfect setup for personal vendetta between Bolg and Thorin. Both of their kinsmen killed the others' kinsmen. It also could set up a great personal hatred for the Bo5A when Bolg sees Dain on the battlefield.
If anything, PJ should have just changed it to where Thorin kills Azog at the battle of Azanulbizar. It seemingly doesn't matter at this point if he had made this change because Thorin is apparently going to kill him later anyway.
Either way, I think PJ's change was unnecessary.
-Sir are you classified as human
-Negative, I am a meat-popsicle
(This post was edited by redgiraffe on Dec 4 2012, 9:56pm)
|
|
|
Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens
Dec 4 2012, 9:57pm
Post #34 of 46
(697 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Of course it is unnecessary....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But why does that mean it is bad?
LR
|
|
|
shadowfaux
Bree
Dec 4 2012, 10:01pm
Post #35 of 46
(758 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm not as current on the history of the changes and the Tolkien canon, but from what I read in the reviews, it has been adjusted so that Azog was not beheaded, his arm was cut off by Thorin (at the battle where he uses the oak-shield), so he is out to avenge his arm (hunting the dwarves down). I would think full CGI Azog would help with the no-arm thing, especially if he has some significant screen time.
Sounds good to me! I won't care much if the appendices' material is skewed to better serve the adaption, as long as the main story sticks pretty close I will be happy. This is a terribly difficult story to adapt, and I can imagine adding the appendices verbatim might not aid in the adaption as much as what they ended up doing.
|
|
|
redgiraffe
Rohan
Dec 4 2012, 10:07pm
Post #36 of 46
(660 views)
Shortcut
|
But why does that mean it is bad?
LR
Again, I can't make a judgement until I've seen the final product. So I'm not saying it's bad.
It's just that, in my opinion, if you can do it just as effectively w/o changing it then why do it?
-Sir are you classified as human
-Negative, I am a meat-popsicle
|
|
|
YaznegSouth40
Rivendell
Dec 4 2012, 10:11pm
Post #37 of 46
(652 views)
Shortcut
|
I do believe you are right...the change was unnecessary. I 'm not one to complain about these films, but you hit the nail on the head for me anyways! If Bolg would have been left as the main orc evil commander as in the book to lead the assault in the BO5A it would have played out better and not created as much confusion...Peter Jackson's changes were probably irresistable to him to pass up, but it would ve been more simpler and just as effective if left as was in the story arc ...but Oh well!
|
|
|
Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens
Dec 4 2012, 10:16pm
Post #38 of 46
(646 views)
Shortcut
|
One version we have very little idea about and the other we can only imagine in filmic form, without a current context.
However they are imagined it is unlikely that any imaginer would deem both to be exactly as likely to succeed as each other. So one bets...
Of course if you believe all Tolkien is basically oven-ready cinematic gold then that might put you instinctively in one camp rather than the other!
LR
(This post was edited by Lacrimae Rerum on Dec 4 2012, 10:22pm)
|
|
|
redgiraffe
Rohan
Dec 4 2012, 10:38pm
Post #39 of 46
(621 views)
Shortcut
|
|
And of course this is a good point
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
One version we have very little idea about and the other we can only imagine in filmic form, without a current context.
However they are imagined it is unlikely that any imaginer would deem both to be exactly as likely to succeed as each other. So one bets...
Of course if you believe all Tolkien is basically oven-ready cinematic gold then that might put you instinctively in one camp rather than the other!
LR
This is certainly a good point. Just because Tolkien's writing is well written for cinema doesn't mean that PJ's change isn't. I actually do really like PJ and what he did with LOTR even with the changes (which I did complain about a lot, initially).
I'm hoping that PJs changes will turn up well on screen. While I would have preferred the original story line, I don't think PJ's change is a bad idea.
Most importantly, is that the change won't ruin the film for me. I will be a little disappointed that it was changed from the story but it's certainly not a bad enough change to ruin it for me.
-Sir are you classified as human
-Negative, I am a meat-popsicle
|
|
|
redgiraffe
Rohan
Dec 4 2012, 10:39pm
Post #40 of 46
(621 views)
Shortcut
|
I do believe you are right...the change was unnecessary. I 'm not one to complain about these films, but you hit the nail on the head for me anyways! If Bolg would have been left as the main orc evil commander as in the book to lead the assault in the BO5A it would have played out better and not created as much confusion...Peter Jackson's changes were probably irresistable to him to pass up, but it would ve been more simpler and just as effective if left as was in the story arc ...but Oh well!
I've heard nothing but positive stuff about Azog. So I'm sure however he is portrayed, it will be cool.
-Sir are you classified as human
-Negative, I am a meat-popsicle
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Dec 4 2012, 11:17pm
Post #41 of 46
(624 views)
Shortcut
|
Azog was killed by Nain. Beheaded in fact. His head was put on a stake outside the gates of Moria and his mouth was stuffed with a bag of coins.................how can he possibly be the main antagonist in film one?????????????
The simplist explanation is that, in Jackson's version, things probably turned out different. Azog is still Bolg's father and he still dies--but in film one by Thorin's hand.
Oh, and Azog killed Nain, not the other way around. Dain was the one who beheaded Azog in revenge.
'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring
|
|
|
YaznegSouth40
Rivendell
Dec 4 2012, 11:45pm
Post #42 of 46
(601 views)
Shortcut
|
do you all think he will still be the slayer of Azog at the BO5A as I believe Beorn still crushes Bolg there. If so the matching slayers will still be intact as in the book (Dain kills Azog/Beorn kills Bolg) except at the time of the Hobbit for Azog's death.
|
|
|
backpackin'man
Registered User
Dec 5 2012, 12:50am
Post #43 of 46
(549 views)
Shortcut
|
Azog was killed by Nain. Beheaded in fact. His head was put on a stake outside the gates of Moria and his mouth was stuffed with a bag of coins.................how can he possibly be the main antagonist in film one????????????? True, and yea i remembered i screwed that up after I posted The simplist explanation is that, in Jackson's version, things probably turned out different. Azog is still Bolg's father and he still dies--but in film one by Thorin's hand. Oh, and Azog killed Nain, not the other way around. Dain was the one who beheaded Azog in revenge. |
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Dec 5 2012, 5:13am
Post #44 of 46
(476 views)
Shortcut
|
do you all think he will still be the slayer of Azog at the BO5A as I believe Beorn still crushes Bolg there. If so the matching slayers will still be intact as in the book (Dain kills Azog/Beorn kills Bolg) except at the time of the Hobbit for Azog's death.
At this point I am not even trying to second-guess how Jackson will stage the Battle of the Five Armies or the deaths of Azog or Bolg.
'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring
|
|
|
Ave Moria
Rivendell
Dec 5 2012, 5:16am
Post #45 of 46
(470 views)
Shortcut
|
Sempai (master)
|
|
|
joec_34
Rivendell
Dec 5 2012, 8:35pm
Post #46 of 46
(390 views)
Shortcut
|
Given all that I've read on the Azog & Bolg subject, I'm hoping that we learn about Azog and all the stuff that went down in the Dimrill Dale, then Azog is rumored to be back from the dead, but it turns out to be his son, Bolg. If in the movie Azog is back from the dead, I'm going to try my hardest to pretend that he is Bolg.
"Happy painting and God bless, my friend." - Bob Ross
|
|
|
|
|
