|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
elostirion74
Rohan
Feb 6 2015, 6:29am
Post #26 of 27
(155 views)
Shortcut
|
Great analysis!
There are some thematic similarities between LoTR and the Hobbit and they share some characters and locations, but they are very different stories.
For me, though, there are two significant components that I take into account. First of all: unlike the book, the Hobbit films were made after LoTR and there was also an explicit and stated decision from the film makers to incorporate the perspective of LoTR more into the story and draw on the appendices as background material.
Second I see Bolg and Azogīs role as coherent active enemies more as a function of the difference between shaping drama in a (conventional) film and the nature of storytelling in a book. And both of the characters have their own reasons for hunting Thorin. The really big problem lies in the link which is made between these characters and Sauron as the films progress.
For me thereīs a very big difference between AUJ and the two other films. AUJ retained much more of the distinctive tone and thematic material of the original story and the sub-plot with the Necromancer is shown and slightly expanded, but still relegated to a background position, which is were it ought to be.
During the course of DoS and BoTFA Sauronīs involvement and strategic decisions get a much more prominent role in the story and at times simply dilute or overpower the distinctive themes of the Hobbit. The lack of a sense of renewal for the different peoples of Wilderland in the films alter the themes of the story and really damages the story, also from a film perspective IMO. And then you also have the changes where a key character in the Hobbit is molded to provide backstory for a minor character.
For me the problem really lies not in the fact that Sauron is present in the story, but in the prominence he gets as the plot progresses: itīs really a failure of priority and perspective IMO. If they kept him more in the background and let Azog and Bolg be more on their own, I would have felt that the marriage between the two stories (Hobbit and LoTR) in the filmverse would have been considerably more successful.
|
|
|
burrahobbit
Rohan
Feb 6 2015, 7:46pm
Post #27 of 27
(141 views)
Shortcut
|
I'd concluded that my topic was completely incomprehensible as not a single reply seemed to understand what I was trying to say. But you did- thank you! :)
Yes it is an intriguing question of whether better writing could have pulled the Azog and necromancer sub-plots into the Hobbit story, and overcome some of these thematic differences.
As well as the prominence issue that you describe, I wonder if the goblins scenes were a bit of a missed opportunity for integrating the Azog story threads into the Wilderland relationships. The Great Goblin was played for laughs, the goblins disappeared after the dwarves escaped, and there was no link between Azog and the goblins. I thought this was an opportunity to bring things together.
One radical option would have been to merge Azog and the great goblin characters, so that the dwarves killing the great goblin is the motivation for Bolg's (great goblin's son) revenge, rather than anything based on flashbacks and ancient history. Then a relationship between the goblins and Dol Guldur could be how Sauron learns about the dwarves plan to return to Erebor. Might have worked, but anyway something to simplify and integrate was needed. Between Bolg, Azog, Dol Guldur and Gundabad, things got unnecessarily messy and complicated.
|
|
|
|
|
