|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YaznegSouth40
Rivendell
Dec 28 2012, 4:39pm
Post #1 of 43
(1680 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I do not get the.....
|
Can't Post
|
|
supreme hatred over Azog? Just by reading more reviews and whenever Azog is brought up, I do not believe I have ever seen a character (especially villian) hated SO much as to akin to Saddam Hussein, Hitler or the like.....it's a movie character! And a computer generated one at that! Everybody has their opinions and I completely understand that! However when those of us who DO like the character cannot talk about him without the ones who do not like him raining in on our parade...that's when it gets iritating! It's like they want to convince us to hate him as well. I absolutely LOVED this film (almost everything was great) and like I have said before will probably LOVE the next 2 even more!
(This post was edited by YaznegSouth40 on Dec 28 2012, 4:40pm)
|
|
|
Aragalen the Green
Gondor
Dec 28 2012, 4:43pm
Post #2 of 43
(913 views)
Shortcut
|
|
So-tell us what you liked about Azog!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Just because others may not like him--and there is a thread below for that--doesn't mean you can't say why you do like him.
I'm open for other points of view. Maybe you can help change my mind 
" Well well!", said a voice. "Just look! Bilbo the hobbit on a pony, my dear! Isn't it delicious!"
"Most astonishing wonderful!"
|
|
|
DanielLB
Immortal
Dec 28 2012, 4:43pm
Post #3 of 43
(851 views)
Shortcut
|
Just by reading more reviews and whenever Azog is brought up, I do not believe I have ever seen a character (especially villian) hated SO much as to akin to Saddam Hussein, Hitler or the like.....it's a movie character!
Then they need to get out more. I've not seen anyone suggest this on here, mind.
Want Hobbit Movie News? Hobbit Headlines of the Week!
|
|
|
painjoiker
Grey Havens
Dec 28 2012, 4:47pm
Post #4 of 43
(820 views)
Shortcut
|
I dig Azog to bits! 
I WANT MORE DEFILING IN DOS!!! 
Vocalist in the semi-progressive metal band Arctic Eclipse
|
|
|
unexpectedvisitor
Rohan
Dec 28 2012, 4:48pm
Post #5 of 43
(841 views)
Shortcut
|
even though i don't personally feel it.
but i wonder if people wouldn't mind as much if he had been created out of the blue instead of used from canon. or if he had died at the end of AUJ? because he really serves the same purpose that Lurtz did in FotR (and doesn't have that much more screen time, honestly), and i don't remember people getting too worked up over Lurtz.
i personally LIKE the fact that they used a villain like him from the Tolkien backstory that's connected to the dwarves. that feels less lazy, more integrated into the Tolkien lore to me than just making up some "lead orc baddie" like they did with Lurtz and potato-face in RotK. and you also get that established animosity with Thorin which is good, cinematically. i guess, in essence, it just really bothers some people that they'd be using a character that Tolkien said was dead. but one thing to remember, though, is that Tolkien often talked about his own writing like he was just relating lore and so inaccuracies and contradictions within his work could often be chalked up to that fact. what if in the film's version of the story (SPOILERS) Azog did die from his wounds and was later resurrected by the Necromancer, as some are guessing? then it's not such a drastic departure from the canon and, in a way, is quite a clever addition to the story.
|
|
|
YaznegSouth40
Rivendell
Dec 28 2012, 4:54pm
Post #6 of 43
(892 views)
Shortcut
|
is that in the moments when we (those who do like Azog) talk positive about him and what we like about the character the dislikers seem to chime in! The dislikers have already expressed their feelings already...no need to chime in when the likers are elaborating is all I am saying! I will be viewing The Hobbit for only my second viewing today and even after seeing the film only once before Christmas I came away impressed (even with Azog). I do not dislike anything about him! I do not think his cgi looks fake! If you stare at the facial features carefully it is so REALISTIC! Yes you KNOW it is a computer generated image, but as a fan I tend to look at the positive and see if I can see it as a credible realistic being...and it does. I like his look as well...no complaints. And a final thing...He's not even depicted how I visualized him! So despite that ...I still liked what they did!
|
|
|
Êleniel Tindome
Rivendell
Dec 28 2012, 5:02pm
Post #8 of 43
(818 views)
Shortcut
|
all people I watched the movie with (non-fans) loved azog. they even said hes way more "cool" than other orks/goblins....
|
|
|
Lindele
Gondor
Dec 28 2012, 5:02pm
Post #9 of 43
(798 views)
Shortcut
|
people seem to have a difficult time using there imaginations when watching films like The Hobbit. This is most likely due to the fact that society is constantly progressing in a way that allows people to not use their imaginations for anything.
I agree that the CGI looks pretty good, and of course I know it is fake but my imagination is able to accept that he is a real character in that world.
|
|
|
Eledhwen
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Dec 28 2012, 5:03pm
Post #10 of 43
(784 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Well, that's the nature of the world
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Some people like stuff. Others don't. Marmite's the classic example. Azog appears to be the Marmite of the Hobbit films. Just as you're perfectly entitled to love the character, and defend him, others are perfectly entitled to dislike him and say why. Personally I found him a bit annoying although I see why he's included as an antagonist until we get Smaug in action. This is, after all, a discussion board and many opinions make for a better discussion.
|
|
|
painjoiker
Grey Havens
Dec 28 2012, 5:05pm
Post #11 of 43
(797 views)
Shortcut
|
Couldn't have said this better!
I'm also really fan of the black speech!
It fits the character!
Vocalist in the semi-progressive metal band Arctic Eclipse
|
|
|
Ardamírë
Valinor
Dec 28 2012, 5:06pm
Post #12 of 43
(783 views)
Shortcut
|
If you'd like 
Aiya Eärendil Elenion Ancalima! Hail Eärendil, brightest of stars!
|
|
|
DanielLB
Immortal
Dec 28 2012, 5:09pm
Post #13 of 43
(785 views)
Shortcut
|
The CGI used and his application. I don't like the change in continuity, but I can live with it.
I quite like the character. He's a believable villain, and I look forward to Thorin's and Azog's final confrontation.
Want Hobbit Movie News? Hobbit Headlines of the Week!
|
|
|
Kassandros
Rohan
Dec 28 2012, 5:22pm
Post #14 of 43
(746 views)
Shortcut
|
|
No one says they hate him like Hitler...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
You're setting up a strawman there. No one hates Azog like Hitler or anything. They just don't feel he adds to the movie and don't appreciate the drastic change to the story that is represented by made by his inclusion.
The thing is, the wargs and the trees is one of the iconic scenes in The Hobbit and the movie version completely changes it to make it virtually unrecognizable. It'd be like if Lurtz arrived at Mt Doom and pushed Gollum in himself. It wouldn't be Lord of the Rings anymore, would it? Well, Thorin charging Azog at the end of AUJ is completely different from the book. It's just a big change and it really neuters the wargs who are their own independent, thinking race in The Hobbit. In AUJ, they're just mounts. It's sad.
Another problem is that Bilbo proves himself by an act of bravery rather than an act of wits. In the book, when he proves himself by rescuing the dwarves from the spiders and then from the elves, he has to use its wits and his courage. Taking any intelligence away from his act of proving himself makes him a thinner character in the movie, or at least makes the act less interesting and integral to his character. Basically, in the book, his two key heroic traits were smarts and courage. In the movie, it's just courage.
all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us...
|
|
|
Simon
Rivendell
Dec 28 2012, 5:22pm
Post #15 of 43
(737 views)
Shortcut
|
In term of CGI and design he was cool i think...but he work more from the standing point of Thorin...its the conflict between him and Thorin that put a little depth in the character
|
|
|
sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea
Dec 28 2012, 5:25pm
Post #16 of 43
(739 views)
Shortcut
|
I just think he's poorly developed, poorly designed, and poorly executed. And i really don't like what they had to do to that brilliant bit of Tolkien's dwarven history to get him into the film. It would have been much better to leave him in the past, use him in flash-back only (much like Isuldur), and let Bolg serve this function.
Loved the Black Speech, though! I wish they did more of this sort of thing.
|
|
|
AinurOlorin
Half-elven
Dec 28 2012, 6:12pm
Post #17 of 43
(718 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I will say again, the character is fine, as I see him. His placement is horrendous, and is part of a larger flaw.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The tale of the Dwarves, of the grief and rage of Thrain, and of the war of vengeance they launched to take retribution for the slaying of The Heir of Durin, is truly epic and staggeringly powerful. Nothing else would have brought all Seven Dwarf Houses together. Moria was not the ancestral home of The Other Six Houses (and they had never dwelt in Erebor, which Thror's far ancestor Thrain I had founded after Durin's House fled the inexorable wrath of The Balrog in Moria), but Durin was The Eldest of The Forefathers, and the first of their kind, and so greivous a desecration of his heir filled them with a special wrath and hatred. All of that is lost in this translation. The hunting "for Azog in every den under the mountains," is gone. There is unfounded talk of Azog having sworn to wipe out Durin's line, when in fact the almost polar reverse is true: when Azog desecrated the body of Thror, The Dwarves of every nation vowed to wipe HIM out, and they began a quasi-genocidal war against the goblin/orc race "sacking every stronghold of the orcs that they could find from Gundabad to The Gladden." We may yet see the real cause of the Dwarves decision to leave Moria to The Shadow, that being The Great Shadow within, who slew their ancestor kings with impunity, haunted their most dreadful nightmares and against whom their arms could not avail: The Balrog. There is at least hope that something of that may yet be maintained in latter flashbacks. But the rest has been mangled, and that could have been avoided by using Bolg in Azog's place. . . or even by a ressurection of Azog.
"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"
"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."
|
|
|
Xanaseb
Tol Eressea
Dec 28 2012, 6:35pm
Post #18 of 43
(692 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I highly agree!. I just can't tear myself away from that canon which is ingrained in my head :(. -that's- exactly what I've found wrong
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
and really it's sad, as I'm not usually this purist!
--I'm a victim of Bifurcation--
__________________________________________
Join us over at Barliman's chat all day, any day!
__________________________________________
|
|
|
Iowaboy
The Shire
Dec 28 2012, 6:44pm
Post #19 of 43
(743 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think one can sum up the Azog-hate quite easily:
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
1. A lot of us do not care for his 'look', which for me screams CGI. If they had used a 'real' person (think a TTT Berserker), that would improve my impression of the character by at least 50%.
2. I think his plot role is rather forced, and his character-development weak. PJ et Co have this bad habit for forcing a dramatic arc on characters who don't really seem to need one--I'm thinking of Arwen and Faramir in TTT/ROTK, and the use of Pippin/Merry in getting the Ents to attack Isengard, for example. All of that seemed forced to me in those films, and unneeded. Same with Azog/Thorin. I think the dramatic arc of Thorin trying to unite the dwarves and prove himself a great leader is more than enough without having a one-dimensional orc villain to contend with.
3. The big scene at the end with Azog is a mess, thematically. I was fine with Thorin doing basically his suicidal charge at Azog, since that seems a logical part of his character, and his need to prove himself in some way. But then it falls apart: Thorin puts up a terrible fight, gets his butt kicked, and friggin' BILBO (!) comes in to save him. I have a lot of trouble with this sequence, and the choices PJ made in how it played out. Why not have Thorin and Azog battle like crazy, only to have an Eagle swoop down and drag Thorin away to safety, when clearly Thorin--even though he would likely die--wanted to stay and fight his nemesis? Why insert Bilbo at all?
4. Azog is the same basic character as Lurtz, or the General Orc in FOTR, or any one of a number of 'baddies' in this series. He has a real 'been there, done that' feel to him. Better to have minimized his role rather than accentuate it.
|
|
|
Aragalen the Green
Gondor
Dec 28 2012, 6:50pm
Post #20 of 43
(695 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Sadly, that's the nature of a comment thread.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Everyone has a right to their opinions, and so do those who read said opinions. Maybe you could create a "I Love Azog!" thread--but that probably won't keep out the nay-sayers. It's a hazard for sure. Just keep cool and emphasize your own opinions, and try not to get into arguments with the disagreers.
" Well well!", said a voice. "Just look! Bilbo the hobbit on a pony, my dear! Isn't it delicious!"
"Most astonishing wonderful!"
|
|
|
sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea
Dec 28 2012, 6:53pm
Post #21 of 43
(668 views)
Shortcut
|
I don't usually mind changes to character or motivation-- i didn't mind the changes made to Aragorn, or even Farimir, for instance. But i DO mind changes to monumental events of the history of Middle-earth, like what they're doing to the Battle of Azanulzibar or the doings of the nine Ringwraiths. Especially when they can achieve what they need through other means. To me, it's just lazy writing, and a seeming growing disrespect for Tolkien's intricately woven history. Need a cool villain fast? We'll just drastically alter dwarven history!
|
|
|
YaznegSouth40
Rivendell
Dec 28 2012, 6:56pm
Post #22 of 43
(663 views)
Shortcut
|
Exactly what I mean!
(This post was edited by YaznegSouth40 on Dec 28 2012, 6:57pm)
|
|
|
Ardamírë
Valinor
Dec 28 2012, 6:56pm
Post #23 of 43
(676 views)
Shortcut
|
Easily more hated than Azog. I really do understand where you're coming from, because I love Jar Jar and the Star Wars prequels in general, but that's is definitely not a very welcomed opinion.
What I've learned is that people will air their opinions whether you want to read them or not. It's best to just let it roll off of you and not let it get you all riled up.
Aiya Eärendil Elenion Ancalima! Hail Eärendil, brightest of stars!
|
|
|
Ardamírë
Valinor
Dec 28 2012, 6:58pm
Post #24 of 43
(661 views)
Shortcut
|
That he looks like a cartoon in an otherwise fairly realistic-looking film and that his backstory was completely thrown under the bus in order to create a half-baked storyline.
ETA - Yay! I've made it to Tol Eressea!
Aiya Eärendil Elenion Ancalima! Hail Eärendil, brightest of stars!
(This post was edited by Ardamírë on Dec 28 2012, 6:59pm)
|
|
|
YaznegSouth40
Rivendell
Dec 28 2012, 7:07pm
Post #25 of 43
(649 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Kassandros I understand that....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
as well....that is the change they did to the backstory. But it just does not bother me. I kinda would have liked to have seen..for instance the Azog beheaded by Dain Ironfoot ...stay the same as in the appendices..but...I still accept what was done! I"m not as worked up about it as it may seem..but the fact that perhaps my most loved book has finally been brought to the big screen in dramatic fashion has me excited that's all! Waited exactly 31 years since I was 9 years old when I first had the story read to our class in elementary school then I read it myself a short time later.
(This post was edited by YaznegSouth40 on Dec 28 2012, 7:09pm)
|
|
|
Lindele
Gondor
Dec 28 2012, 7:08pm
Post #26 of 43
(435 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Well if you are going to make the argument
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
that he looks like a cartoon, then IMO you'd need to include the goblins, goblin king, gollum, trolls, wargs...
they all look like 'cartoons' in the sense that they are CG. he didn't look any worse than them, he is just more humanoid i guess.
|
|
|
Ardamírë
Valinor
Dec 28 2012, 7:09pm
Post #27 of 43
(434 views)
Shortcut
|
|
He looks worse than all of those
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
And I'm not the only one who thinks so. Gollum is CG and doesn't look like a cartoon, so it's not too much to expect that Azog be like that.
Aiya Eärendil Elenion Ancalima! Hail Eärendil, brightest of stars!
|
|
|
Lindele
Gondor
Dec 28 2012, 7:16pm
Post #28 of 43
(420 views)
Shortcut
|
people think he looks worse because he is more human-like than any of the other characters. The other characters are more 'creature-like' and therefore the suspension of disbelief is easier to attain. The CG is not poor.
Either way, my statement stands. People seem to have a hard time letting their imaginations do the work.
|
|
|
AinurOlorin
Half-elven
Dec 28 2012, 7:59pm
Post #29 of 43
(461 views)
Shortcut
|
|
"The Warrior's of Nain, Gror's son, drove through the orcs. . . all the while they cried 'Azog! Azog!"
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Their axes had his name on them, with a diagram of his ass drawn beside it! They MEANT to kill him. They were LOOKING for his hindparts! It was the whole point of their war. as well....that is the change they did to the backstory. But it just does not bother me. I kinda would have liked to have seen..for instance the Azog beheaded by Dain Ironfoot ...stay the same as in the appendices..but...I still accept what was done! I"m not as worked up about it as it may seem..but the fact that perhaps my most loved book has finally been brought to the big screen in dramatic fashion has me excited that's all! Waited exactly 31 years since I was 9 years old when I first had the story read to our class in elementary school then I read it myself a short time later.
"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"
"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."
|
|
|
YaznegSouth40
Rivendell
Dec 28 2012, 8:16pm
Post #31 of 43
(398 views)
Shortcut
|
that Gollum is kinda cute and small and thus his cgi looks believable along with just that character's character where as Azog is a huge, villianous character that relies more on being a war-like brute. For some reason those characters always seem to be looked down upon as unbelievable, if no actor is in a suit and prosthetics. The prosthetic orcs from LOTR are all these years later getting love than they did back then! I noticed that! Wonder why? ...Azog..hint/hint
(This post was edited by YaznegSouth40 on Dec 28 2012, 8:19pm)
|
|
|
AinurOlorin
Half-elven
Dec 28 2012, 8:18pm
Post #32 of 43
(403 views)
Shortcut
|
|
On The Dwarves having Azog's name on their axes. . . I attempted editing this post
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
to make it more complete, but the edit time ran out (you should give us a window of at least an hour or so lol).
"Azog! Azog!" The wrathful chant of the dwarves. They were not cowering from the uber-orc. They were barreling towards him like an armed train of vengance. Their axes had his name on them, with a diagram of his ass drawn beside it! They MEANT to kill him. They were LOOKING for his hindparts! It was the whole point of their war. Again Nothing else would have brought all Seven Dwarf Houses together. Moria was not the ancestral home of The Other Six Houses (and they had never dwelt in Erebor, which Thror's far ancestor Thrain I had founded after Durin's House fled the inexorable wrath of The Balrog in Moria), but Durin was The Eldest of The Forefathers, and the first of their kind, and so greivous a desecration of his heir filled them with a special wrath and hatred. All of that is lost in this translation. The hunting "for Azog in every den under the mountains," is gone. There is unfounded talk of Azog having sworn to wipe out Durin's line, when in fact the almost polar reverse is true: when Azog desecrated the body of Thror, The Dwarves of every nation vowed to wipe HIM out, and they began a quasi-genocidal war against the goblin/orc race "sacking every stronghold of the orcs that they could find from Gundabad to The Gladden."
The war was not about taking Moria back. It was about kicking ass and taking names, along with Azog's hide. They knew Moria had become a den of evil. Erebor was founded because they abandoned Moria to, Durin's Bane, the slayer of their ancestor kings. A Demon against whom they had no hope of unaided vengeance, and a being more fundementally evil than Smaug could ever have considered being, even though Smaug's raw destructive force was greater. And in the end, even when the war and its final battle were ended, in a victory so absolute and devestating that the notion did come into Thrain's thought that perhaps Moria could be reclaimed after all. . . The Demon made his presence known, and the Dwarves abandoned such hopes.
But I digress. The matter of The Balrog may still get some modicum of the attention it merits. But the Dwarf and Goblin war has been mangled. The motivation was powerful, and the story was powerful, and the changes didn't have to be made. Thorin had mortally wounded Azog and there were indications that Sauron had revived him, it could have worked better. . . but Thorin severs his hand and then just stands back smugly satisfied whilst Azog bellows (never once falling over) for him to be carried from the field? No Coup De Grace? No seemingly fatal stab or slash to the jugular? He could at least take the other hand. It is a less impressive story and a more sloppy one. We could have been given all the fury and wrath of The Dwarves (and a better understanding of their people) and still had a vengeful Bolg, or even a raised Azog (hell, there was a Maia Demon living in Moria. .. maybe he put a hold on Azog's expiration until Sauron could perform a more thorough rehabilitation lol) fulfill the monstrous, hunter role.
"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"
"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."
(This post was edited by AinurOlorin on Dec 28 2012, 8:26pm)
|
|
|
IDLookout
Rivendell
Dec 28 2012, 8:25pm
Post #33 of 43
(389 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Couldn't have said it better Iowaboy
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
My first thoughts upon seeing that scene ranged from Arwen at the Ford (poor Frodo not being able to finally stand up to the ringwraiths) to Faramir being a jerk to Sam being "sent home" (poor Frodo turning into an ass?) on the stairs. Seems that PJ & Co just can't stand to let a moment go by without "tweaking" the character's motives and development, when all they really accomplish is to drastically alter other characters.
Yes, i loved the movie and am going to see it again tomorrow, but a few scenes I could have done without, such as the Azog/Tree scene.
"Hate him like Hitler?" though? Um, no.
Bilbo, Bilbo! Bilbo Baggins,
He's only three feet tall.
Bilbo, Bilbo! Bilbo Baggins,
The bravest little hobbit of them all.
-Leonard Nimoy
|
|
|
Fredeghar Wayfarer
Lorien
Dec 28 2012, 8:38pm
Post #34 of 43
(400 views)
Shortcut
|
I understand the comparisons between Azog and Lurtz, as they serve a similar role in each film. But for me the analogy doesn't work. Lurtz was simply giving a name to something that was already in the book -- the orcs who kill Boromir. For the sake of a cool visual and a dramatic fight scene, the movie gave the lead orc a name. As for "potato face," that was intended to be Gothmog, a character from the book. So again, it's adapting an existing aspect of Tolkien's story.
Azog is a different situation. He's taken from Tolkien lore, yes, but in way that contradicts what Tolkien wrote. His addition to the film doesn't expand on something that was already present. It adds a completely new element.
I think that's why I disliked Azog so much. His very presence is a reminder of my issues with an otherwise awesome movie. He contradicts Tolkien, he adds a new unnecessary element to the story, and he exists to give film 1 a strong villain, something that wouldn't have been needed if Jackson hadn't decided to do a trilogy.
To be honest, if they had left the Azog plotline the same but used Bolg as the lead antagonist, I probably would have been okay with it. I know that's nitpicky and silly but to me, it would have felt more organic to the Hobbit story. It would have expanded an aspect of the book, rather than insert a dead character from a completely different story.
(This post was edited by Fredeghar Wayfarer on Dec 28 2012, 8:46pm)
|
|
|
AinurOlorin
Half-elven
Dec 28 2012, 9:04pm
Post #35 of 43
(383 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Very true, and well stated by you.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I might add to the underlined, it adds something new by completely changing what is written, and severly diminishing the story. There are some changes I was fine with. The cliff business, for example. . . many people complained, but I thought it made the scenario more plausible. We have seen, in the novels, that Gandalf is quite adept at both starting and enhancing fires, as well as at snuffing them out (all the torches and fires in The Goblin King's lair being silmutaneously snuffed. . . and torches don't snuff easily). Having the Wizard fighting gravity and trying to keep companions from falling to their dooms, makes a plausible excuse for why he would not lay an enchantment to do more with the fire below, including putting it out if necesarry, or at least shifting its direction so that it would fan out at his foes. Azog is not a helpful change. The alteration of the backstory greatly devalues a powerful tale. I understand the comparisons between Azog and Lurtz, as they serve a similar role in each film. But for me the analogy doesn't work. Lurtz was simply giving a name to something that was already in the book -- the orcs who kill Boromir. For the sake of a cool visual and a dramatic fight scene, the movie gave the lead orc a name. As for "potato face," that was intended to be Gothmog, a character from the book. So again, it's adapting an existing aspect of Tolkien's story.
Azog is a different situation. He's taken from Tolkien lore, yes, but in way that contradicts what Tolkien wrote. His addition to the film doesn't expand on something that was already present. It adds a completely new element.
I think that's why I disliked Azog so much. His very presence is a reminder of my issues with an otherwise awesome movie. He contradicts Tolkien, he adds a new unnecessary element to the story, and he exists to give film 1 a strong villain, something that wouldn't have been needed if Jackson hadn't decided to do a trilogy.
To be honest, if they had left the Azog plotline the same but used Bolg as the lead antagonist, I probably would have been okay with it. I know that's nitpicky and silly but to me, it would have felt more organic to the Hobbit story. It would have expanded an aspect of the book, rather than insert a dead character from a completely different story.
"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"
"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."
|
|
|
Elenorflower
Gondor
Dec 28 2012, 9:20pm
Post #36 of 43
(379 views)
Shortcut
|
Bilbo suffers in this confrontation. Its unecessary to have Bilbo being 'heroic' this soon in the film. In the book, he only really becomes braver in the fight with the spiders, because its a life or death situation for all of them. he uses his brains to outwit them, and develops as a character from being the meek Bilbo from the Shire into a resourceful and braver person.
Plus Azog aint scary.
|
|
|
Mahtion
Rivendell
Dec 28 2012, 10:12pm
Post #37 of 43
(360 views)
Shortcut
|
As others have mentioned Azog is a representation of all the alterations that have been made to the Hobbit. The Dwarven motivations and history have been changed but considering the amount of Elven history changed in LOTR I suppose I have grown accustomed to them.
Let us all agree that Helm's Deep is akin to or near the blatant changes made to Tolkien's legendarium. I recall when Two Towers was released and I hated the fact that Haldir would be denied the Blessed West simply to have a pivotal and dramatic death scene. I perceived this one change as PJ making up for all the Elf exclusions and revisions.
So in a sense this type of behavior of Jackson is not rare or unexpected. In fact if we look at previous examples like Arwen using the Bruinen to drown the Nazgul instead of Elrond using Vilya or Arwen's fate being tied to the One Ring we can see a pattern. I expect many more changes to the narrative and plot in the next two Hobbit films.
|
|
|
unexpectedvisitor
Rohan
Dec 28 2012, 10:29pm
Post #38 of 43
(372 views)
Shortcut
|
|
edit: this comment had small beginnings
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
one of the reasons that critics gave that they would not let their youngest kid watch the movie was because Azog was a "nightmare." so there are some that definitely disagree with you on the Azog not being scary thing.
Azog is not the film's strongest addition. but he's fine. there are bigger changes that were made in the LotR films that actually affected themes and so forth. as brilliant and careful as he was, Tolkien often contradicted himself within his mythology, so to act like he can't be contradicted isn't even true to the way that Tolkien approached his own universe--like he was simply a scribe relating lore and mythos from a bygone era. yes, the given history of a minor character in Tolkien lore is revised here to present a Lurtz element. to argue that it adds something that wasn't present in the story more than Lurtz or potato-face did--i would argue just the opposite. indeed, it brings an element of the existing backstory into the current story, rather than adding a new character out of neither the backstory or the current story as given by Tolkien. it also helps minimize the very episodic feel of the first third of The Hobbit as related in the book.
if you approach it from a non-purist perspective, i dunno why people have a problem with Bilbo jumping into the action at the end of a three hour movie. too soon? i don't think the rest of the general audience or the critical world would agree with you. that act of courage and the resulting moment between Thorin and Bilbo after they've been rescued by the eagles is a very necessary dramatic beat for this first installment to end on, or it really would have fallen very flat at the end. so it does really all boil down to whether you're opposed to it being three movies now. i myself was very skeptical about that, but then i saw AUJ, and i have to say--yes, there are a few minutes here and there that i could have done without, but not nearly enough that i would have rather had two three hour movies than the three that we are getting. shots that are beautiful and stately in AUJ would have been much shorter, action and reflective moments alike truncated or cut out all together. Bag End would have lasted ten minutes at most.
but The Hobbit is not some sacred tome to me. i love it, it's great, but i was actually looking forward to seeing what changes or additions were made. i don't want to see the same version of the story i see in my head when i read the book. i want to see something else, something fresh, and to see the filmmakers work on connecting it to the larger story and to the LotR movies they made. so, different expectations for me. but some of you have to remember, just because the filmmakers do something differently than the way it was done in the book, it is not at all like they are saying "we think the book would have worked better if it had been written this way." because they aren't trying to rewrite the book. they're trying to make a movie based on the book, and due to the timing they also have the extra obligation of connecting that with movies already made on the books that came after. so, when you see changes from the text, it is the filmmakers saying, "we think the movie we are trying to make will work better if we do it this way." and i can see all the reasons for the changes and decisions they made. i don't necessarily agree with all of the choices, but some are claiming that this film is an example of lazy writing and that the writers didn't think stuff through--and i'm sorry, but that is just blatantly wrong. the amount of effort and care that was put into adapting this story in a way that would broaden the scope out through the appendices material into something that would work both as "The Hobbit" and a bona fide prequel trilogy to the LotR movies, while delving even deeper into the themes of what defines heroism, the importance of home, and the role of fate in our lives--i mean, it is readily apparent and it is astounding.
the filmmaker's job in an adaptation is not to give you a visual "translation" of the literature. that removes all of the artistic responsibility or credit on the filmmaker's part and is an insult to your own imagination. the filmmaker's job is show you their own vision as inspired by the source text. i understand that, from all of our different subjective standpoints, there will always be negatives to point out. the same was true of the LotR movies. the same is true of every movie. it's fine to point that stuff out. yet, it seems like in almost every thread that gets started about this movie, we continually are seeing posts that make a point of talking about the stuff they didn't like. now, this thread was kind of asking for it, anyways, but i've just been seeing it over and over and over again, no matter what the thread is about. i end up trying to defend the movie over and over and over again because i like it so much and have such a difficult time understanding why some fans are so disappointed or why some critics can't seem to get past their preconceptions of prequels as nothing but cash-grabs. but, critics, i mean, whatever. but the fans...the fact that we could get a movie with all those dwarves included (a pure logistical and storytelling nightmare from a filmmaking perspecting), a film with THAT prologue, THAT Unexpected Party (good gracious, the scene where the dwarves sing and Bilbo is listening? the perfection of the moment when he decides to join the adventure?), THAT Trolls scene, THAT version of the Troll hoards and the added conversation between Bilbo and Gandalf, THAT White Council, THAT adaptation of the Gimli/Gandalf conversation in the LotR appendices into the beautiful convo between Galadriel and Gandalf in AUJ, THAT added moment between Bilbo and Bofur, THAT Riddles in the Dark, THAT incredibly resonant moment in which Bilbo spares Gollum's life, THAT speech that Bilbo gives to the dwarves about choosing to help them reclaim their home, THAT sublime vision of the company being carried by the eagles...and all of it somehow greater than the sum of its parts, one thing leading to another and building up the character arcs and the larger narrative...and yet we choose to focus on the negative? it saddens me. because i know the movie ain't close to perfect but i can see, plain as day, how the filmmaking team poured their hearts and souls and considerable skills into making that movie.
|
|
|
morgul lord
Rivendell
Dec 28 2012, 11:04pm
Post #39 of 43
(340 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I liked Azog - wayyy more than Gothmog from ROTK
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Seriously, ROTK is one of my favourite movies of all time, but Gothmog was horrible.
I like Azog, and don't get the hate either. Cool design, even if it's a little too CGI. And I like how he adds to Thorin's backstory.
|
|
|
GothmogTheBalrog
Rivendell
Dec 28 2012, 11:07pm
Post #40 of 43
(327 views)
Shortcut
|
I loved Azog's character! It was awesome! The only thing I didn't like was that it was Azog. If it had been Bolg out for vengeance, it would have been so much cooler!
"It was like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, of man shape maybe, yet greater; and a power and terror seemed to be in it and go before it." ~FotR
|
|
|
Rostron2
Gondor
Dec 29 2012, 12:35am
Post #41 of 43
(308 views)
Shortcut
|
I don't even mind the inclusion of Azog so much, or the story changes. I just didn't like the look of him. I mean, after you lose your arm, you'd think he'd have learned to wear some armor for Morgoth's sake! The Great Goblin was more interesting.
|
|
|
Ziggy Stardust
Gondor
Dec 29 2012, 1:37am
Post #42 of 43
(301 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I too loved the movies and thought Azog was cool
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But I don't think that many hated him, did they? How could they? He was a villain with character, thinkin and planning. He wasn't just a mindless orc. I was impressed with how they adapted him, giving him some background. He was only mentioned in the novel, but we see him brought to life in the film (same with Radagast, I was pleasantly surprised.)
|
|
|
RhodeCamelot
The Shire
Jan 1 2013, 11:58am
Post #43 of 43
(239 views)
Shortcut
|
Thank you for being so wonderfully insightful & optimistic! //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
#dftba
Excuse me, sorry to interrupt but what should i do with my plate?
|
|
|
|
|
