Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
I do not get the.....
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Lindele
Gondor


Dec 28 2012, 7:08pm

Post #26 of 43 (266 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 (266 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 (251 views)
Shortcut
I'm saying [In reply to] Can't Post

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 (290 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.

In Reply To
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."


Ataahua
Superuser / Moderator


Dec 28 2012, 8:12pm

Post #30 of 43 (243 views)
Shortcut
Oh that is perfect. [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Azog appears to be the Marmite of the Hobbit films.



Although unlike Marmite, Azog is readily available. Unimpressed

Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."

"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauron’s master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded beggar with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.


Ataahua's stories


YaznegSouth40
Rivendell

Dec 28 2012, 8:16pm

Post #31 of 43 (229 views)
Shortcut
Perhaps it's.... [In reply to] Can't Post

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 (235 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 (219 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 (227 views)
Shortcut
Not quite the same as Lurtz [In reply to] Can't Post

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 (196 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.

In Reply To
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 (202 views)
Shortcut
I agree with you Iowaboy [In reply to] Can't Post

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 (191 views)
Shortcut
Azog and Arwen [In reply to] Can't Post

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 (184 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 (172 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 (158 views)
Shortcut
Personally [In reply to] Can't Post

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 (134 views)
Shortcut
I loved the film [In reply to] Can't Post

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 (133 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 (75 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?

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.