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:
What is considered "within the spirit of Tolkien" in the hobbit movie?
First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

Tol Eressea

Nov 17 2013, 3:27am

Post #1 of 53 (1245 views)
What is considered "within the spirit of Tolkien" in the hobbit movie? Can't Post

This is not directed at any poster in particular at all. I have just been thinking, and believe that I may have found a way that even purists may at least consider deviations from the book to film to still be within the spirit of Tolkien.

Ok, for starters I am no Tolkien expert. I have never claimed to be (though I did snort with Stephen Colbert's massive insistence that the Silvan elves are Atari, or unwilling, because he is actually wrong, and most of the world saw it Tongue) I have only recently become even aware of the existence of Tolkien 6 years ago.

However, since I was first introduced to the world of Tolkien via my now brother in law, I have come to have a full admiring respect for BOTH Tolkien and Peter Jackson and co (my term for the movie team).

I have heard a lot of discussion on here regarding deviations from the books. Some are arguing that they are within the spirit of Tolkien, while others argue that they change canon too much, and thus aren't.

But can something be in the spirit of Tolkien, and yet be a deviation from canon?

I believe it can Smile

I will start with probably the second most controversial character in the films- Azog.

From canon (this includes all works by Tolkien that I have read, including the appendices at the end of LOTR) Azog was a Gundabad orc who had taken up residence in Moria. When Thror, in a moment of madness, walked into the east gate of Moria, Azog beheaded him, carved his name on the dwarf's forehead, and threw it out for the messenger that came with him with a purse of worthless coins in his mouth. The orc then claimed that HE was lord of Moria.

When the messenger returned to his people, and told Thrain and Thorin what had happened, they spent quite a long time recruiting help from all 7 of the dwarf kingdoms, seeking revenge for this defilement of the descendant of the eldest father of the dwarves, Durin I. Thus began the 7 year war between dwarves and orcs. In the final battle outside Moria, Azog slew King Nain, the father of Dain II Ironfoot (though Dain was not known by that epithet at the time) and lord of the Iron Hills. Dain, at the age of 32, then slew Azog. But when Thrain, in his madness, went to enter Moria, or Khazad dum in the dwarf tongue, Dain stopped him, reminding him that Durin's bane still lived- the balrog who had caused the dwarves to flee Moria in the first place.

It was during this battle that Thorin earned his epithet, Oakenshield, and where his brother, Frerin, perished.

That's canon. And these events happened many decades before the Quest for Erebor.

Now, in the films, this has been changed. The dwarves, led by the mad Thror, try to retake Moria since they lost Erebor. Azog slays Thror, cutting off his head and carving his name in the Black Speech on his head. Thrain goes mad, and disappears. Thorin, in grief and rage, attacks Azog. The pale Gundabad orc had sworn to wipe out the line of Durin, of which Thorin is descended. In a last desperate attempt, Thorin has to use an oaken branch to deflect the blows from Azog's club/mace. He succeeds in cutting off Azog's hand and turning the tide in the dwarves' favor to win the battle. And believes Azog to be dead.

Now, during the quest, we see that Azog is in fact alive. He's still out for the blood of the line of Durin, or more specifically, the head of Thorin as the king of Durin's folk (though in exile). And now he has a personal beef with Thorin as well, for taking his hand.

Many people are very upset with the inclusion of Azog, since, by canon, he is supposed to be dead at this point. While I understand their points, saying that it isn't "in the spirit of Tolkien" and being angry at the filmmakers for changing canon and being unfaithful to the source material may be a bit of a stretch.

See, I believe it to be within the spirit of Tolkien, even if it's a deviation from the book canon.

Tolkien had very specific "rules" guiding his world. That is what makes it Middle-earth, and not just some other random fantasy with pretty scenery and other races besides humans.

What makes an Orc in Tolkien's world? An orc is evil. They are cruel, and they need little provocation to fight. They are misformed and ugly to human eyes, and are mutilated and distorted into something evil by Melkor, the Valar who brought discord within the song of Illuvatar.

Azog in the movie is an orc who seeks to wipe out the line of Durin. He is from Mt. Gundabad, which is the awakening place of Durin I himself, set there by Aule (Mahal to the dwarves) who first created them, perceiving Illuvatar's design for the firstborn, the elves. Orcs overran Gundabad a long time before the quest, yet the dwarves still regard it as a sacred place.

So, does a Gundabad Orc's desire to wipe out the line of those who used to call his home theirs? Well, if that's not in the spirit of Tolkien, then Thorin wishing to reclaim HIS home from a dragon certainly isn't either. Yet Thorin's desire is in the book Wink

Orcs don't exactly need much provocation to be angry, or to want to kill something. It's in their very nature. Once Thorin cuts off his hand, then it just became personal.

As for him being alive, yes, it's a deviation from canon. Is it against the spirit of Tolkien? I think Azog presents himself just like any other (semi-intelligent) orc would, given his history, his home, and his experiences with battle. He fights like an orc-brute strength and wielding a mace/club-not exactly a weapon you have to have much instruction on, and very orcish. He speaks the Black Speech, just like an orc would in ME. He has a symbiotic relationship with wargs- that is also what some orcs would do in ME. He is cruel- hence his epithet- Defiler.

He does not break any of the rules of Tolkien's world. He IS a Middle-earth orc by definition.

And that's why Azog is in the spirit of Tolkien, and why the filmmakers have kept his inclusion in the film within the Spirit of Tolkien, even if it didn't necessarily follow canon timelines.

I am not sure I want to enter the Tauriel debate just yet- but know that she, from what little I have heard, could well NOT be within the spirit of Tolkien Wink

I will wait to see DOS before I come to that conclusion Cool

Race is meaningless. We all bleed red-no matter who or what we are. What matters is the heart. For each race has those with good hearts and those with bad hearts. You have a good heart. You do not deserve to die.


Nov 17 2013, 3:53am

Post #2 of 53 (658 views)
Dain had indeed seen The Balrog, the Bane of Durin. He had scene the Demon of Might [In reply to] Can't Post

, who had come down near to the gate in the aftermath of the war, and beholding him the wrathful Dain was filled with terror, and returned to Thrain with grim warnings.

As to Azog... lot of problems with it. Among many other things, it turns the entire history and motivation of the Dwarf and orc war on its head. The patriarchal dwarves and their campaign of slaughter, hunting Azog in every den under the mountains, all of that dissapears for Azog to come and fulfill a job that Bolg could easily have worked in.

If the upset of the history is too severe, it is not enough to say, "well yes, a creature of this people would behave that way," when the entire timeline and sequence of events are severely jarred by the shifts.

"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."

Smeagol Bagginsess

Nov 17 2013, 4:03am

Post #3 of 53 (677 views)
The only Tolkien I found in AUJ [In reply to] Can't Post

The party (minus belching)
and the thrush.

The worst?
Azog and the White council.

Smeagol Bagginsess

Nov 17 2013, 4:07am

Post #4 of 53 (628 views)
And [In reply to] Can't Post

Though the dwarves are a deviation from the book (well, half of them) I think they are more or less true to Tolkien. :)

(This post was edited by Smeagol Bagginsess on Nov 17 2013, 4:10am)

book Gandalf

Nov 17 2013, 4:27am

Post #5 of 53 (592 views)
hmmm [In reply to] Can't Post

i think you miss the point especially concerning azog,

what you are saying about azog is completely correct, but you only talk of chronology, facts, dates etc

i think to be within the spirit of tolkien you have to refer to his writing style, his words language and historical literary and philosophical influences

azog in particular has none of the spirit you talk of, he is not based on any writing or ideas from tolkien i know off (character wise), the only thing tolkien about azog is the name azog.

the core of tolkiens orc work is in lord of the rings , some clearly defined characters and personalities with anxietys, greed,fear. i dont feel any of that writing in azog. he is a fanboy hollywood monster that growls with big muscles, he has a spike for an arm for gods sake!

i predict the same failures for tauriel

its was just always going to be that the film makers made up stuff doesnt have the depth or intelligence of tolkiens work.

they should have avoided these areas altogether and worked with the core material as much as possible!

This is a serious journey, not a hobbit walking-party.

Tol Eressea

Nov 17 2013, 4:30am

Post #6 of 53 (584 views)
I wasn't necessarily saying [In reply to] Can't Post

that the deviation from canon, when done too far, was in the spirit of Tolkien.

I said Azog himself was.

There is a difference.

I agree that Bolg could have filled that role for sure, and am a bit surprised they didn't go that way. But cinematically speaking, revealing the balrog now (when some haven't seen FOTR), while wonderful and abiding by canon, would have severely lessened the impact of the fellowship beholding this terror for the first time.

And there wasn't a lot of time to show the dwarf/orc war sadly Unsure maybe some day a fan film will be done to depict what was surely an amazing era of the history of the dwarves. Heck, I would love if someone could depict the time period on film with Celebrimbor forging the rings, and the bearers receiving them, as well as that time period where Moria was at it's height and traded with the elves of Hollin. I would love to see the war in the north with Angmar and Arnor. I would have loved to see the fall of Numenor...

Yeesh, I would love to see everything, from hearing the music of the Ainur and watching Arda and Aman be created, to where the books end (and even beyond perhaps).

But the amount of film to work both cinematically and depict an accurate tale would be about 2,000 hours long....

Maybe a Tolkien fan with unlimited resources and time could do this one of these days Cool

I think Azog was what Azog would have been- he just happened to survive the battle rather than die in it. That was my point- the timing is off, but the character himself is very much how Tolkien would have intended him to be, IMO.

But people are allowed to disagree Smile

Race is meaningless. We all bleed red-no matter who or what we are. What matters is the heart. For each race has those with good hearts and those with bad hearts. You have a good heart. You do not deserve to die.

Fredeghar Wayfarer

Nov 17 2013, 4:44am

Post #7 of 53 (586 views)
No one disputes the way he's depicted, just the fact that he's there [In reply to] Can't Post

You're correct that Azog is depicted as a Middle-earth orc with abilities and motivation consistent with the world presented on screen. He doesn't have out-of-place weaponry or powers and he speaks an Orkish dialect of the Black Speech. I have no doubt that if Azog had survived Azanulbizar in the books, he'd behave just as he does in the movie.

The reason he rubs many of us the wrong way is that we don't see the need for his inclusion. He comes across as a cliche villain who's only there to add unnecessary action scenes and beef up the story for the sake of multiple films. On top of this, his presence alters the canon, making him doubly annoying. For me at least, Azog is the poster child (poster orc?) for all the unnecessary changes and expansions to the original book that Jackon is doing.

Is he written in the style and spirit of a Tolkien character? Sure. Does that make it easier for me to accept him being in the movie? Not really, no.


Nov 17 2013, 5:00am

Post #8 of 53 (562 views)
My gut feeling [In reply to] Can't Post

is that there could have been more time spent on Azog's rendering (a wee bit) and that things like this can have subtle psychological effects that can pull people out of a story and suddenly turn their minds to a critical mode - maybe trying to rationalize the feeling of "it's just not right" when the reason for it may just be something as simple as consistency in time spend rendering the 3D and how different he looks than other orcs (i.e. very shiny etc.)

As for the "spirit of Tolkien" - well that honestly depends on who you talk to. Some will insist that this means the highest of high fantasy. Others will talk about Linguistics. Still others will aim towards the Shire and essential britishisms. Some will insist either that religion is or must not in any way be involved. I think the original post makes a fair attempt at identifying "rules for consistency" but keep in mind - there are a few "seeming contradictions" in his own stuff and it doesn't seem to follow a very rigid set of rules to my understanding (I say this based on comparing the Sil, TH, and LotR which vary from each other in quite a few flavorful ways). There are things that can be said about it but they tend to be more general than this thread seems to be - considering all his middle earth stuff (or even just LotR, TH, and LotR appendices).


Nov 17 2013, 5:00am

Post #9 of 53 (542 views)
Was just thinking.... [In reply to] Can't Post

Now it must be clear that Dain fought in the Battle of Azanulbizar in the films. What if he and a band of Dwarves pursued Azog as he was escorted away after he lost his arm?! Reckless it may seem yes, and maybe he could have encountered the Balrog and turned back! Hopefully we may yet see some additional footage.

I do not want what it is not mine.... I only want what comes from within....


Nov 17 2013, 5:01am

Post #10 of 53 (578 views)
"Within the spirit" [In reply to] Can't Post

To me, this concept means true to the nature of a character as presented by Tolkien.

For example, in FotR we saw Boromir do several things that were not in the book, but they were consistent with his character as described by Tolkien. In fact, in the book he seemed kind of a jerk until after he was dead, but as we learned more about Gondor we realized that he had much nobility about him. His movie portrayal brought that nobility out during his life, so that his "fall from grace" in trying to get the Ring and his subsequent death were seen to be tragic. "Book purists" are generally happy with this.

In contrast, consider the movie treatment of Denethor. Book Denethor was proud, rigid, and rather cold, but was certainly not the raving loony as he was portrayed in the movie, until he suffered a complete breakdown from grief thinking his son was dying and the war was hopelessly lost. The cliched movie portrayal was definitely not "in the spirit..." so many people hate it (including me). A truer portrayal of Denethor would have been more tragic and dramatically effective, I think.

In the case of Azog, what's annoying is that he's utterly unnecessary, and his "resurrection" messes up several other important themes. His role as a primary antagonist with a deep grudge could perfectly well be filled by Bolg. In addition, many people (including me) think his design is awful, looking like an animated rubber mannikin.

(This post was edited by Elizabeth on Nov 17 2013, 5:03am)

Tol Eressea

Nov 17 2013, 5:03am

Post #11 of 53 (559 views)
there are many alterations to the canon [In reply to] Can't Post

in LOTR too, and more people seem accepting of those than they do with the changes to AUJ.

I am not saying everyone has to accept his inclusion. But I think that him not being in the spirit of Tolkien might go a bit far....

Book wise- TH works. I would have liked the attention to detail that Tolkien exhibited in LOTR, but understand that is not possible.

But cinematically, I understand that some things simply don' translate to film. Would someone as stubborn as Thorin have gone to Rivendell willingly? I highly doubt it. The orc pack was an excellent solution to that problem.

Now we move on to another one. Why would the warg pack have been there in the first place? Gandalf even says that was unusual for the time period, and that is one of the things that greatly concerned him. So now we need a reason that makes sense for the pack to be there.

I think Bolg would have made excellent sense. But they chose to go with Azog. But even with Bolg, it begs the question of:

Why Thorin? Why wouldn't he be after Dain instead, the dwarf who actually DID slay his father?

Then you have another problem that could put you right back where you started.....

I am quite certain, especially after seeing the appendices in the EE and all the vlogs, that it is very difficult to adapt a book to film and make it work (especially a narrative one, like TH is-seen from Bilbo's eyes).

This particular problem ended up being solved by Azog. Because I guarantee you that if it had been Thorin who genuinely slew Azog instead of Dain (and thus fixed the above problem regarding Bolg), people would have still been upset.

In the end, I suppose they went with what they felt was best. Good, bad or indifferent. I think that all of us have preconceived notions about how a movie based off a much beloved book would go, and we aren't all going to agree. I accept that.

I just personally believe that there's enough evidence to justify Azog's part in the film being in the spirit of Tolkien, even if others don't.

Race is meaningless. We all bleed red-no matter who or what we are. What matters is the heart. For each race has those with good hearts and those with bad hearts. You have a good heart. You do not deserve to die.


Nov 17 2013, 6:05am

Post #12 of 53 (526 views)
Not fully revealing the Balrog, but at least properly and definitively alluding to him. Perhaps a glimpse. [In reply to] Can't Post

The problem with not doing it, as I have said before, is that it strains continuity for the sake of a "big reveal," and in the end raises serious questions. Because Moria has been prominently featured with no mention of a Demon, if the Demon is not mentioned before this film series ends, when we reach Act 4 and Saruman taunts Gandalf with allusion to lore of this ancient Dark Power that has long been the Terror of Moria, it becomes a 'what?' moment. What is this, and where did he come from? Why did we never hear a thing about him in all the Moria business unloaded on us in those last three films. The Balrog comes off, instead of as an intrinsic and deeply essential and rooted part of the lore and the history of The Dwarves (Indeed, in films largely about dwarves he all but demands mention, for he is their TRUE nemises aside from Sauron the Enemy of all. He slew their great Ancestor King, Durin, he drove them from their most hallowed kingdom of Moria and turned the sacred halls into places of profane dread, and it is he, of all Elf Banes most deadly save Sauron, who haunts the deepest nightmares of Durin's Folk... we get NONE of that from Fellowship, the movie, alone), as a gimmick, an inserted boss fight for Gandalf. It doesn't matter how cool or creepy the reveal is, it can only be enhanced by rooting it in organic feeling history. The terror and tension of the moment, and the potency and magnitude of it, is far greater if audiences have in the back of their minds from previous films, "there is some great terror in Moria that we have not yet fully encountered," as opposed to, "ohhh! there is a demon in Moria? Never heard about that!"

I digress though. I agree that the depiction of Azog fits very well with the cannon. I just cannot agree that the changes to the history do. Him being alive when the entire purpose of the Dwarves war on his people was his death in vengeance for the slaying of Thror, heir of Durin, is massively defiant of the lore.

"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 Altaira on Dec 19 2013, 2:27pm)

Tol Eressea

Nov 17 2013, 6:46am

Post #13 of 53 (498 views)
as always [In reply to] Can't Post

you bring up very excellent points which merit thought.

They did show the glow of fire in the east gate during the battle, so maybe if we see Thrain captured we may get a fleeting glimpse Smile

One can only hope Smile

Race is meaningless. We all bleed red-no matter who or what we are. What matters is the heart. For each race has those with good hearts and those with bad hearts. You have a good heart. You do not deserve to die.

Tol Eressea

Nov 17 2013, 9:11am

Post #14 of 53 (466 views)
*I* dispute the way he's depicted. [In reply to] Can't Post

To me, he seems entirely out of place in the world of Jackson's Tolkien.

Agree with everything else you said.


Nov 17 2013, 9:21am

Post #15 of 53 (460 views)
I do not consider canon and spirit to neccessarily co exist, although at times the can and do. [In reply to] Can't Post

For example film Azog is essentially non canon but is within the spirit of Tolkien. He remains what Tolkiens orcs are, just not specifically what book Azog is. Whereas film Kili is not at all within the spirit of Tolkien. He is much closer to book Kili's situation than film Azog is, but he is nothing like Tolkiens dwarves in appearance or character. When I refer to Tolkiens dwarves I mean what we know of them when we consider all of his writing, whether it was published during his life or not.

I do not consider the inclusion of Tauriel as being outside the spirit of Tolkien. In time her portrayal may prove her character otherwise, but beyond the fact no elven women were noted as being warriors, at least one, Galadriel, is noted of having great physical prowess, so we may interpret that other female elves were similarly capable to some degree, which would have enabled them to fulfill such a role as that assigned to Tauriel. Furthermore if we have Eowyn killing the Witch King in arguably the most detailed, prolific "present" battle between combatants, then it is not outside the spirit of Tolkien to have an elven guard captain that is female.

Tol Eressea

Nov 17 2013, 9:29am

Post #16 of 53 (459 views)
I was going to mention the "re-characterization" issue too... [In reply to] Can't Post

...in light of the debate that has been raging in the "Is Thorin going to come off as weak?" thread.

At what point does the re-imagining of a character, and changing events as written, completely depart from the author's vision? If you do not honour the author's original intentions then you are not keeping to the "spirit" of the work.

"Choosing Trust over Doubt gets me burned once in a while, but I'd rather be singed than hardened."
Į Victoria Monfort


Nov 17 2013, 9:30am

Post #17 of 53 (476 views)
I think the problem here really..... [In reply to] Can't Post

... is the very concept of 'being in the spirit of Tolkien.' It's so subjective - so bound up with the way each one of us feels towards the books. The letter of Tolkien - canon, if you will - is there on the page and we can see it - and discuss it when there are conflicts in within Tolkien's writing - but the spirit is what each one of us makes it.

The way I see it so far, the role of Azog as envisaged in the film has something to do with their overall design of goblins and orcs - which in turn was affected by the different tone of The Hobbit. In LotR they showed different breeds of orc, all very unpleasant and very dangerous. The singing goblins of The Hobbit book are different - just try imagining Lurtz or Gothmog pausing for a quick song. PJ & co could have disregarded that in the film but they didn't - they acknowledged it in the design of the film's goblins, who are repulsive but not especially effective against a determined bunch of fighters. The danger is in numbers; individually they're a bit useless. And they sing.

That sits well with the book, I think - but posed the filmmakers with a problem. It's one thing having singing goblins inside the mountain, but those goblins wouldn't make much of an enemy outdoors, in 'Out of the Frying Pan'. To build up the tension in that scene the film needed orcs. The audience needed to believe that there was a real danger to Bilbo, Gandalf and the dwarves - hence the orc band. But an orc band can't suddenly appear at that point - it has to have to have been following the company - and for this a reason has to be invented within the film adaptation. And just as with Lurtz, PJ & co probably felt that the pursuing orcs needed to have a leader. They could have used Bolg. They could have invented a name. But they didn't, they chose Azog.

Why? I don't know, and I suggest that at this point none of us does. I can't judge yet whether the use of Azog in the film is 'in the spirit of Tolkien' because there are too many loose threads. Beyond the general 'wanting to wipe out Durin's line' why is he looking for them on this particular journey? How does Bolg fit into it? Where is the storyline heading? What I've seen so far seems to me to follow a logical series of decision in the process of adapting the book. It's OK so far. I've reached the point of disregard complaints about the design/CGI because to me they've become a kind of knee-jerk response. The quality of the work I see on screen is light years away from any video game, and is as actor-driven as Gollum. For the rest, I'll judge the complete storyline when I know what it is!


Nov 17 2013, 9:48am

Post #18 of 53 (435 views)
Is that really a problem though? [In reply to] Can't Post

I agree that it would be nice to have some foreshadowing about the Balrog, but it's not really a storytelling error to just have it show up in FOTR. No one reading the LOTR book for the first time knew about the Balrog before the Moria scenes, and I haven't heard anyone complain about that for the past sixty years.


Nov 17 2013, 9:49am

Post #19 of 53 (442 views)
What themes? [In reply to] Can't Post

What important themes does Azog's resurrection mess up?


Nov 17 2013, 9:51am

Post #20 of 53 (450 views)
To me... [In reply to] Can't Post

... the spirit of Tolkien can not be described that easily.

It is something I either feel or not.

To me, however, Azog and Tauriel do not ruin that as of yet and both characters seem to me as characters that could have more or less existed like this in the universe and don't spoil the movieverse.

To me it is far more important now that Azog will prove to be a good addition for the telling of the movie story. I am pretty sure Tauriel will be.

ďAll good stories deserve embellishment."

Praise is subjective. And so is criticism.


Nov 17 2013, 1:14pm

Post #21 of 53 (364 views)
Dormouse, as usual I agree with you completely. [In reply to] Can't Post

Excellent point about the Goblins and Orcs of TH and LotR and the ensuing difficulties for the film makers.

It seems to me that some people object to Azog because they are into Orcs, especially Bolg and donít want to see Bolgís role somehow diminished. To others his presence is an unacceptable deviation from canon in general, specifically the history of the Dwarves. Fair enough on both counts.

I donít care about either of those things in the movies. I too think that there may be more to Azog than we have yet seen and will wait until TABA to judge him.

For me the movieverse is a slightly different version of Tolkienís Middle Earth and I expect and accept deviations from the literary canon. I actually like a lot of the changes, not because they are superior to what Tolkien wrote, but because I think they work better in a movie and because I like seeing a different take on the stories I have read so many times.

But each of us had to decide for ourselves about the spirit of Tolkien and how far is too far. That point is probably different for each of us.

Tol Eressea

Nov 17 2013, 1:51pm

Post #22 of 53 (363 views)
Knee-jerk? [In reply to] Can't Post

No, I think the complaints about his CGI are totally merited. It is my opinion that he looks "painted" on top of his scenes, especially in the scene at Weathertop. His unnatural glow in the moonlight, coupled with his almost slow-motion way of moving and speaking, make for a very jarring presence, IMO. I'm not just ragging on his CGI because I dislike the fact that he is alive. I'm willing to admit that he may look much better in DoS, since they will have had much more time to work on him. Still though, I felt there was an unnaturalness to him in AUJ. Nothing "knee-jerk" about it.

Tol Eressea

Nov 17 2013, 1:57pm

Post #23 of 53 (366 views)
Just a quick little nitpick... [In reply to] Can't Post

Dain's father Nain was never king, Thrain was king at this time.

Sorry, couldn't resist Smile

(This post was edited by Salmacis81 on Nov 17 2013, 1:57pm)

Tol Eressea

Nov 17 2013, 2:06pm

Post #24 of 53 (368 views)
This is really what bites me... [In reply to] Can't Post

His role as a primary antagonist with a deep grudge could perfectly well be filled by Bolg.

Bolg would have had the perfect motive for wanting to chase after the Dwarves. Hell, they could have just had Thorin kill Azog at Azanulbizar instead of or in tandem with Dain, which would have explained why Bolg was chasing after Thorin. Plus, using Bolg wouldn't have required any sort of contradictory timeline shift.

Instead, they decided to go with Azog swearing to wipe out the line of Durin. Why has Azog sworn to wipe out the line of Durin? Where does this grudge of his come from?

(This post was edited by Salmacis81 on Nov 17 2013, 2:07pm)

Tol Eressea

Nov 17 2013, 3:20pm

Post #25 of 53 (320 views)
Correction to my post... [In reply to] Can't Post

they could have just had Thorin kill Azog at Azanulbizar instead of or in tandem with Dain

I would have MUCH preferred "in tandem with Dain", as opposed to "instead of Dain". I believe Dain must have something to do with Azog's death, no matter whether it would have been at Azanulbizar, or if it comes during the Bo5A.

First page Previous page 1 2 3 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.