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:
smaug or azog? (controversial)
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All


Apr 22 2013, 9:24am

Post #1 of 40 (1740 views)
smaug or azog? (controversial) Can't Post

who do you think is a more fitting villain for the hobbit movies?
im not going by the book but as a movie itself, and how it has already been established. would audiences (tolkien fan and non tolkien fan) rather see more of the mythical, dragon smaug, or the more human like side with azog.?

also on another note i have heard rumours that turin son of hurin might be shown in the trilogyShocked!
i know this is absurd but it could work given the fact that he slew glaurang, who was way more baddass than smaug ;) and he could be in some flashback

"fingolfin looked up in grief to see what evil morgoth had done to maedhros"


Apr 22 2013, 9:37am

Post #2 of 40 (789 views)
Smaug [In reply to] Can't Post


Because Azog was killed off before the storyline in the book even started and the premise was about the Dragon and the treasure. Bolg was just a subplot.

Take this Brother May it Serve you Well
Vote for Pedro!


Apr 22 2013, 9:42am

Post #3 of 40 (762 views)
Smaug, definitely [In reply to] Can't Post

Personally, I very much prefer Smaug as the villain of the piece. What can I say, I like dragons. Azog is rather, well, a bit of a walking cliche to me... Plus I still haven't figured out just why he actually wants to wipe out the line of Durin, so there's a bit of motivation lacking there. I mean, did he just decide one day, "Oh, let's go an wipe out something - those descendants of Durin sound good."? And then, why 'the line of Durin' when he just goes after Thror and his family. Should he not, logically, also be after Dain, Oin, Gloin, Balin and Dwalin? The whole thing is oddly personal, but with no background behind why it is so personal.

A dragon, on the other hand, has his motivation practically defined for him. He wants gold. And he doesn't care who he has to kill to get it. It's nothing personal, he just incinerates/squashes/eats whoever happens to be in the way. I prefer that.

I see the need to have a more immediately present villain in the movie, though. Smaug is so far away, he doesn't really come into the whole journey. In the book that works fine, but in the movie, I guess, some more immediate danger is needed to keep the non-book people interested.

About Turin - never heard that rumour before. Odd, but interesting. Would PJ, though, even have the necessary rights to use that?


Apr 22 2013, 10:25am

Post #4 of 40 (751 views)
I don't think PJ is concerned about rights [In reply to] Can't Post

Would PJ, though, even have the necessary rights to use that?

I don't think he is overly concerned about rights-The facts that the other two wizards were the blue wizards, Bilbo had changed from a young adventurous hobbit into a repressed greedy indivudal, and Gandalf's concerns that Smaug might be used by Sauron are all lifted from Unfinished Tales-which they don't have the rights to.

Throw in the ring of Barahir (In the Two Towers extended cut-I don't believe it was in LOTR book) and the whole rumoured Bolg the Torturer of Dol Guldor thing (which seems to be based on Linguistic infromation from the H.O.M.E and the essay on 'Boldog's' in Morgoth's ring -see the entry on Bolg in The History of The Hobbit for more info) and its pretty obvious PJ has little regard for copyright issues. As for Azog I've seen the film thre times and he gets more and more annoying-cliched, bolted on at the last minute, badly designed and a Mahoosive departure from the books-I still maintain Bolg would have worked fine.

Having a central villain who was killed of in another book and is totally redeundant and out of tune with the plot of A CHILDRENS STORY to me is one step to far-I've stoped refferring to PJ's films as the hobbit as it is.

‘As they came to the gates Cirdan the Shipwright came forth to greet them. Very tall he was, and his beard was long, and we was grey and old, save that his eyes were keen as stars; and he looked at them and bowed, and said ‘All is now ready.’

Perhaps the most fascinating Individual in Middle Earth

Smeagol Bagginsess

Apr 22 2013, 10:34am

Post #5 of 40 (764 views)
Azog is a garbage. [In reply to] Can't Post

Personally, I don't like anything at all about Azog. And to be honest, he doesn't even look scary. My parents as well as one of my fan-fellows said the same. I admit the voice is definitely badass but not the look. He actually looks like Voldemort all muscled up. (And I never found Voldy scary from the movies) And I don't think even if they are going to improve his look in the next two, it still wouldn't be scary.

For me, Lurtz was far more horrific than Azog.

This is from the view point of the movie as itself. And as mentioned by Angharad, his purpose for revenge is too fragile.

A fact to consider: We got a whole movie to judge the Azog-crap and within this movie we got about 10 seconds of Smaug. Yet how many of you are looking forward to see Smaug more than Azog in the next movie? I bet the percentage would be more than 90 %

These all are merely from the point of view of how the movie stands in itself not considering the book.

And I don't want o start all over again about how it stands from the POV of the book. I admit, the only addition I liked in AUJ was the prologue and radagast exploring Dol Guldur.

I am the Grandson of Samwise Gamgee. My grandpa loved Frodo uncle and Frodo uncle loved his pet, Smeagol. So I am named Smeagol Bagginsess! Ain't I cute?


Apr 22 2013, 10:57am

Post #6 of 40 (704 views)
The thing is... [In reply to] Can't Post

... most people here have read the book, I believe, and then it is very hard to separate the book and the movie. For me, it certainly is. In the book Smaug is interesting, so I am hoping that movie!Smaug will be as interesting. Azog, on the other hand, is just the cliche-type bad guy, so not interesting to me. I don't mind the way he looks, although he sometimes makes a face that I simply cannot stand (I want to slap him when he does that...).

To prove a point, I have asked my husband - who is most decidedly not a fan, has not read the book, and whom I have forced to watch the AUJ just yesterday - which villain he prefers. And he said that he prefers Azog, because he is obviously villainous, as he goes around chasing the Dwarves to kill them (not to mention how he picks up that other Orc with his claw hand). The dragon he has no real concept of because he has seen too little of it, so it doesn't appear to be a threat at all. (Actually, my husband said he preferred the Goblin King, but I told him that that fellow was out of the race due to having been killed off, so then he picked Azog.)


Apr 22 2013, 11:09am

Post #7 of 40 (674 views)
I think... [In reply to] Can't Post

... even someone who completely loves Azog's storyline and design would opt for Smaug.

A dragon remains a dragon, after all Cool

As for Azog... I liked the general idea and really like the design and after seeing the footage with Thorin/Azog outside of Moria with the actor, I am kind of glad they went with the CGI solution. However, my verdict will depend on how well the Azog/Bolg storyline works out in DoS and TABA, since after AUJ it is not yet clear why it could not have been Bolg instead.


Apr 22 2013, 11:27am

Post #8 of 40 (665 views)
Smaug [In reply to] Can't Post



Apr 22 2013, 11:50am

Post #9 of 40 (694 views)
I believe you are misinformed about that [In reply to] Can't Post

Peter Jackson has to care about rights, due to the threat of copyright infringement lawsuits from the Tolkien estate. To clear up some of the specific issues you raised:

-The Ring of Barahir is mentioned several times in the Appendices of LOTR (pages 393 and 414 in the Harper Collins paperback).

-The other two Wizards of the Istari are also mentioned in LOTR, but not named. This gave rise to the "inside joke" in the movie, where Gandalf says that he has "quite forgotten their names" (i.e., only fans will know why he has to say this).

The other issues are just matters of interpretation using characters (Bolg, Smaug) that do appear in The Hobbit.

Don't mess with my favorite female elf.

Smeagol Bagginsess

Apr 22 2013, 12:00pm

Post #10 of 40 (694 views)
About the rumour ... [In reply to] Can't Post

... about Turin. Take my word, it's nothing more than billious blue blistering balderdashed barnacles!
First of all, in no way PJ has got the rights of the Sil and also I think at least PJ would understand the fact that showing Turin in The Hobbit is gonna be like showing Sauron in a Mickey mouse show. So forget about it, it's completely shallow.

And some saying PJ not concerned about rights:

EDITED: Dweller said all that I was about to say. Well explained buddy. Yeah, all of those things mentioned are in the appendices. And how do you imagine Tolkien estate to sit down quietly doing nothing, while PJ "steals" away characters from the Sil.

I am the Grandson of Samwise Gamgee. My grandpa loved Frodo uncle and Frodo uncle loved his pet, Smeagol. So I am named Smeagol Bagginsess! Ain't I cute?

(This post was edited by Smeagol Bagginsess on Apr 22 2013, 12:03pm)


Apr 22 2013, 12:55pm

Post #11 of 40 (593 views)
Smaug // [In reply to] Can't Post


And Iluvatar spoke to Ulmo, and said: 'Seest thou not how here in this little realm in the Deeps of Time Melkor hath made war upon thy province? He hath bethought him of bitter cold immoderate, and yet hath not destroyed the beauty of thy fountains, nor of my clear pools. Behold the snow, and the cunning work of frost! Melkor hath devised heats and fire without restraint, and hath not dried up thy desire nor utterly quelled the music of the sea. Behold rather the height and glory of the clouds, and the everchanging mists; and listen to the fall of rain upon the Earth! And in these clouds thou art drawn nearer to Manwe, thy friend, whom thou lovest.

Tol Eressea

Apr 22 2013, 1:07pm

Post #12 of 40 (596 views)
Smaug. [In reply to] Can't Post

Azog is more caricature than a character, seeming like a half-baked leftover from WWE than anything from M-e. He is the only character, in my opinion, who doesn't fit in Jackson's Middle-earth, much less Tolkien's.

(This post was edited by sauget.diblosio on Apr 22 2013, 1:14pm)


Apr 22 2013, 3:48pm

Post #13 of 40 (532 views)
Smaug.... [In reply to] Can't Post

an orc is an orc is an orc..... but a DRAGON - now your'e talking!


Apr 22 2013, 3:51pm

Post #14 of 40 (560 views)
Um... Bilbo in 'The Hobbit' isn't young and adventurous.... [In reply to] Can't Post

He's stuffy, middle-aged, likes his home comforts and denies all interest in adventures - Peter Jackson took that straight from the book.

Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea

Apr 22 2013, 4:07pm

Post #15 of 40 (547 views)
Yes, absolutely... [In reply to] Can't Post

Even though I enjoy the film, there's a number of things that keep me at arm's length - and Azog is at the top of the list. As others have said, he's a walking, talking cliche. The 'rivalry' between him and Thorin is utterly dull and severely lacking. I've never minded story changes just because they're changes, but the writing here is so amateur (never thought I'd say that after LotR). Every time he appeared onscreen, my interest in the movie became incredibly deflated.

Sadly, it looks like they've decided to make him the major villain of the trilogy (ala Saruman in LotR) - which is bad from both an adaptation perspective and a cinematic one. Unsure

"All men dream; but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds awake to find that it was vanity; But the dreamers of day are dangerous men. That they may act their dreams with open eyes to make it possible."
- T.E. Lawrence

Forum Admin / Moderator

Apr 22 2013, 5:26pm

Post #16 of 40 (516 views)
I think the reference is to Gandalf's statement in the movie [In reply to] Can't Post

when he chastises Bilbo for his transformation to a young, adventurous hobbit to a stick-in-the-mud that won't go with the dwarves. I think the movie-Bilbo is very much like book-Bilbo.


Apr 22 2013, 5:35pm

Post #17 of 40 (498 views)
Inconclusive at this point [In reply to] Can't Post

We are only 1/3 of the way through the story. PJ did not want to reveal too much of Smaug and the Necromencer yet, but he needed a villain to add more intensity into the first film, hence Azog. Maybe Azog is just a henchman for the Necromencer, who knows. We will get more information in the 2nd and 3rd film. December can't come fast enough!


Apr 22 2013, 11:53pm

Post #18 of 40 (448 views)
Azog! (avoids thrown vegetables) [In reply to] Can't Post

Actually, I'm not trying to say that he's a better villain but I'm kind of looking forward to seeing him more. I think it might be the fact that the Smaug storyline will likely play out pretty much as it does in the book, while where they're going with Azog is very much a mystery. But I think it has potential and I hope they do something good with it. I can see how some people weren't impressed with him in AUJ, but he wasn't even onscreen for very long. So there wasn't much room for deeper development and I hope that changes in the next two movies.

Going back to Smaug, I am looking forward to his portrayal but I don't think the Smaug confrontation is what the adventure is really about, nor do I see him as the main antagonist. In terms of conflicts, let me put it this way:

Smaug = Helm's Deep
Azog/Bolg/Necromancer (or however they choose to play it out) = Battle of Pelennor Fields


Dwalin Balin Kili Fili Dori Nori Ori Oin Gloin Bifur Bofur Bombur Thorin

Orcs are mammals!

Want to chat? AIM me at Yami Liokaiser!

Tol Eressea

Apr 23 2013, 1:06am

Post #19 of 40 (428 views)
Personally I think the main villain should be Smaug but... [In reply to] Can't Post

since we are getting Azog in all three films and Smaug in one maybe the beginning of 2, Azog looks like he is going to be Peter Jackson's primary villain. Not saying I agree with it since I think Azog is the biggest waste of time ever put on film. I think in the "grand scheme" of things Smaug will be overshadowed by Azog who was NEVER in the Hobbit and even the Necromancer which was only a minor mention in the Hobbit book.

Smaug should be the main villain no if ands or buts IMO since he is the only character Tolkien actually wrote that was in the book, the other one gets his due in LOTR and the other has been dead for a long time and still IMO has no place in the Hobbit Tongue

(This post was edited by sinister71 on Apr 23 2013, 1:06am)

Ziggy Stardust

Apr 23 2013, 1:10am

Post #20 of 40 (410 views)
Smaug [In reply to] Can't Post

Definitely, definitely Samug.

Ziggy Stardust

Apr 23 2013, 1:12am

Post #21 of 40 (429 views)
Took the words out of my mouth [In reply to] Can't Post

Billions of blue blistering barnacles. That's what I call it. Jackson respects the Tolkien rights. Why would he put Turin in the Hobbit when Turin has his own story, which takes place a long time before the Hobbit? You're absolutely right.


Apr 23 2013, 2:03am

Post #22 of 40 (407 views)
Smaug (once he shows up)... [In reply to] Can't Post

Smaug is definitely the ultimate external villain of The Hobbit. Of course, after his demise, we are dealing with more internal conflicts (greed and ambition of more ambiguous characters).

'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring


Apr 23 2013, 4:08am

Post #23 of 40 (440 views)
This. And the mere fact that the question bears asking shows how far afield they have gone to have [In reply to] Can't Post

pushed Azog this far into the forefront. Smaug became an afterthought in film one. The last part almost might have been read "oh yeah. . . by the way, there is still a dragon, that dragon we mentioned."

In Reply To

Because Azog was killed off before the storyline in the book even started and the premise was about the Dragon and the treasure. Bolg was just a subplot.

"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."


Apr 23 2013, 4:54am

Post #24 of 40 (377 views)
SMAUG [In reply to] Can't Post

Sorry, I'm not going to even try to be kind, or objective. If any one here actually thinks Azog is a better villain than Smaug, all I can do is shake my head...

Azog isn't even a villain in the book. And, in the short amount of time that he appears in all the history of middle earth, I do not see him as a blue, cliche', video game character.

Smaug all the way. Even if they mess him up in TDOS, he will still be better than Azog for the simple fact that HE IS IN THE BOOK.

"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"

Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea

Apr 23 2013, 5:04am

Post #25 of 40 (422 views)
What do non-book readers think of Azog? [In reply to] Can't Post

Does anybody have any input from friends/family who have only seen AUJ, and not read 'The Hobbit'? I myself wonder if Azog just seems completely out of place when I'm watching the movie because I know he's not in the book. I think it's hard to objectively judge whether that's the case or not. Do non-readers like him as a villain?

"All men dream; but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds awake to find that it was vanity; But the dreamers of day are dangerous men. That they may act their dreams with open eyes to make it possible."
- T.E. Lawrence

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.