Our Sponsor Sideshow 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

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
Why do the people hate Azog?
First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

DainPig
Gondor


Jun 30 2015, 6:38pm

Post #1 of 66 (3370 views)
Shortcut
Why do the people hate Azog? Can't Post

I really don't know why... he's fantastic!

Yes, it's a shame he's CGI Unimpressed, but, he still beeing a evil guy and I love him.

How aaaaaaaaaaaaaare you all???


Ereinion Nénharma
Lorien

Jun 30 2015, 6:45pm

Post #2 of 66 (3236 views)
Shortcut
I agree... [In reply to] Can't Post

...I think Azog, despite being CGI, is the best designed orc in all of Jackson's Middle-earth movies. He's not so deformed and weak, but you can still see the 'lost elf' in him.

''Do not fear the shadows, for seeing them means light is near...''


Eruvandi
Tol Eressea


Jun 30 2015, 6:55pm

Post #3 of 66 (3232 views)
Shortcut
A lot of the complaints I've heard... [In reply to] Can't Post

...mostly have to do with him not being in the book. Or rather he was supposed to be dead in the book.

I personally "hate" (not even sure that's the right word for how I feel) Azog not because he wasn't in the book, but because he's creepy and evil. Seriously, I've had nightmares about that pale orc. I'm not saying I wish he hadn't been put in the movie...he's quite the intimidating villain and I think Manu Bennet did an awesome job...I just don't like him in the way I don't like most evil characters. I don't like them simply because they are evil and do evil things to the good characters.

Probably the only orc in the the Hobbit Movies I hate at least as much as Azog is Bolg, especially after he killed Kili and looked all triumphant and happy about it. Bad orc. Bad.Frown (Bad Azog for looking happy about killing Fili too.)

Lord I give you everything, Anything you want from me
Take my past and my future I lay it at your feet
Yeah, I'm after your heart, you've stolen mine
I give you my all 'cause you gave up your life
I'm not who I was simply because, Oh, you set me free

And you change me from what I used to be
Opened my eyes, now I can see
You're making this life so beautiful
So beautiful

~"Beautiful" by Dan Bremnes



dormouse
Half-elven


Jun 30 2015, 7:43pm

Post #4 of 66 (3188 views)
Shortcut
Because he's not very nice.... [In reply to] Can't Post

...and has an unpleasant tendency to kill people?


Avandel
Half-elven


Jun 30 2015, 8:02pm

Post #5 of 66 (3173 views)
Shortcut
Because of the Durins [In reply to] Can't Post

Tho I will say, at least, he has a PERSONALITY - urgh. But I do love that he blows some attitude with "his Master".


Mooseboy018
Grey Havens


Jun 30 2015, 8:36pm

Post #6 of 66 (3150 views)
Shortcut
not Azog necessarily [In reply to] Can't Post

I can't speak for everyone, but I think most people have a bigger problem with how his story was handled than the character himself. Like a lot of the changes they made to the story, especially the ones after the three film split, there's this sense of "did they REALLY need to do it that way?"


Meneldor
Valinor


Jun 30 2015, 8:36pm

Post #7 of 66 (3147 views)
Shortcut
I find the character to be unimaginative. [In reply to] Can't Post

He's like a cartoon villain, all stereotypes and cliches. He'd be fine as a background character, but he doesn't have the depth I want to see in a major character who is supposed to be the focus of multiple scenes. He bores me.


They that go down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters, these see the works of the Lord, and His wonders in the deep. -Psalm 107


CathrineB
Rohan


Jun 30 2015, 9:01pm

Post #8 of 66 (3128 views)
Shortcut
I actually... [In reply to] Can't Post

... liked him better with each movie.

It's painful to say this since I love Thorin, Fili and Kili, but I find it refreshing with a villain that finally is more than just talk and actually does exactly what he sets out to do. He not only manages to kill his heirs, but even one of the main characters (well I consider Thorin a main character anyway). How many villains aren't all talk and fails in the end? He dies, sure, but he got what he wanted.

I hate him. But because we're supposed to. Not because I don't like his designs or whatever. In the first movie I was like "Meh", but I don't know. I now "enjoy" hating him in AUJ too. Laugh


(This post was edited by CathrineB on Jun 30 2015, 9:03pm)


AshNazg
Gondor


Jun 30 2015, 9:27pm

Post #9 of 66 (3108 views)
Shortcut
Yup, his story makes zero sense... [In reply to] Can't Post

His hand is cut off, but he somehow survives and then he comes back to hunt down Thorin (decades after the event) and for some reason is summoned to Dol Guldur to lead an army to Erebor, so his son (who was already in Dol Guldur and could easily have lead the army) is sent after Thorin instead, then Bolg is suddenly told to go to Gundabad and get more orcs?! (which end up not doing anything) Crazy It's a total mess.

The character is okay, but his story was a little confusing in AUJ and then in DoS and BoFA it made no sense at all.


Glorfindela
Valinor


Jun 30 2015, 11:10pm

Post #10 of 66 (3056 views)
Shortcut
I think he makes a good villain [In reply to] Can't Post

In fact, he is the best of all the villains in the ME films for me – probably apart from only the Black Riders in FotR.


Spriggan
Tol Eressea

Jun 30 2015, 11:12pm

Post #11 of 66 (3058 views)
Shortcut
I would recast that somewhat - and don't think the conclusion is the same. [In reply to] Can't Post

He hates dwarves and Thorin especially, after maiming him. After many decades he allies with Sauron who aids him in locating Thorin. Azog's end of the bargain is to lead Sauron's armies. Having failed to secure Thorin's death, Sauron calls in his debt as his army is ready to march. Bolg takes up the hunt but also fails to secure the death and additionally alerts the elves. With Thorin beyond reach in Erebor, Smaug dead and armies in the move, the hunting-game is over and Bolg steps into a deputy commander role. He gathers a second army, which would have overwhelmed the good guys, if not for the aerial reinforcements and the loss of their leaders/ command structure.

I'm not sure what doesn't make sense.


brotherbeck
Rivendell

Jul 1 2015, 1:00am

Post #12 of 66 (3016 views)
Shortcut
Azog [In reply to] Can't Post

Well right off the bat his design is very unimaginative and boring, especially when you consider some of the amazing concept art that was done for these films. There is literally no reason why he couldn't have just been played by a tall, muscular actor painted white.

Plus, I honestly don't think the special effects technology is quite up to where it would need to be yet to make a character that has so much screen time front-and-center in so many shots actually feel like a believable presence. He doesn't quite look like someone from a video game cut scene to me, as some harsher critics of the film have stated, but he also does not at all look like a living, breathing entity who takes up physical space in the same world as the other characters. He sits somewhere awkwardly between the two.

It could be because the VFX artists were rushed with all of the last minute changes to the films, but whatever the reason he just doesn't look that believable on screen.

His storyline is a convoluted mess that makes little to no sense. Ultimately though, my biggest problem with Azog is that I just think he is completely unnecessary. I think the story of The Hobbit is interesting and compelling enough to keep viewers thoroughly entertained without shoehorning an odd chase plot into the films. I really wish the films took the chance to let the story breath a little bit, but it feels like every time that may in fact be a possibility Azog shows up and they all start running again.

To me he is a big, shiny, white, badly rendered reminder that Peter Jackson didn't have much faith in or respect for the story of The Hobbit who keeps showing up out of nowhere while I'm trying to watch the story and attacking the characters.


Pandallo
Rivendell

Jul 1 2015, 1:16am

Post #13 of 66 (3006 views)
Shortcut
What I find interesting in that... [In reply to] Can't Post

Is that Azog's only "non-canon chase" scene in AUJ is outside of Rivendell. We know there were Wargs and Warg Riders when they made their escape, with or without Azog.. That clears up Movie 1.

In DoS they are still fleeing, yes but what did you want in that regard? A second movie to open with Gandalf leading them to good ol' Beorn's house with his performance animals without a care in the world for the Company? Not a very exciting start, in my opinion. Azog's role is then given to Bolg from thereon out. So you can't complain about one without the other in such a case.

In BotFA we are shown that Azog is not just dumb muscle but is probably one of the most tactically minded officers that Sauron has who uses actual strategy to fight instead of just "swarm, break, kill" as the Witch-King tries in RotK. There is no chase scene in that. I feel that if Thorin had been killed by random mook #23 that would have felt like a slap in the face.

I should say though the original story has its shortcomings and I feel in many places Peter Jackson's adaptation is superior to the original work.


Never_Underestimate_A_Dwarf
Rivendell


Jul 1 2015, 1:27am

Post #14 of 66 (2998 views)
Shortcut
He killed Fili [In reply to] Can't Post

He's evil for evil's sake. He was included in the movies just to have some added villian moments. Azog is unnecessary. And he twists his sword-arm into Fili.


brotherbeck
Rivendell

Jul 1 2015, 1:37am

Post #15 of 66 (2990 views)
Shortcut
The Beginning of DoS [In reply to] Can't Post

With regards to your question concerning the beginning of DoS - yes, that is exactly what I wanted, the film to take it's time and show us that part of the journey. I had been looking forward to seeing Beorn and his house visualized on screen for years, so Azog showing up at that point feels to me like a huge and hugely unnecessary distraction. The film then kicks into high gear and we only see quick glimpses of Beorn in bear form and breeze through the scenes at his house. The way the films ultimately played out showed that they had no interest in Beorn and it really would have made sense for them to cut him from the films altogether. The performance animals would have looked silly on screen and I understand why they were cut - those types of changes make sense for a screen adaption. But I don't think you need to have your entire film / trilogy become a giant chase to keep people interested - good writing can do that too.

I am glad you feel that way about the films being superior to the book in regards to the whole Azog situation, and I respect your opinion while completely and utterly disagreeing with it entirely.

The film breezes through things such as Beorn and Mirkwood yet practically grinds to a halt to spend what feels like hours at Laketown so we can watch Alfrid empty the Master's chamber-pot and watch The Master (?) slam Bard in the face with a stick (?!?) yet we still skip one of the most important things that happens in Laketown with the celebration. Then four of the dwarves are arbitrarily left behind in Laketown (?!??!??) because they are in such a hurry to find the door. There is no way the dwarves of the company would all be so fine with splitting up and leaving some of their own behind at this point in the story, not when they are this close to their home. It completely undercuts the great scene of them in the fog when they are arguing abut money but are all struck silent at the quick glimpse of Erebor through the mists. All of that feels like a huge slap in the face to the story to me.


Adrianna
Lorien


Jul 1 2015, 5:24am

Post #16 of 66 (2946 views)
Shortcut
Actually [In reply to] Can't Post

 

I was trying to figure out were is the family resembles between Azog and Bolg.I must admit he was quite different looking than any other orc that I have saw. Don't really dislike him. I did do some internet research on him because did not know what his character had to do with the story plot.

He did seem a bit polished don't know if that had something to do with CGI world or not.

"I did free him. I freed his wretched head from his miserable shoulders."


DanielLB
Immortal


Jul 1 2015, 6:44am

Post #17 of 66 (2918 views)
Shortcut
He was superfluous. [In reply to] Can't Post

Why have both Azog and Bolg as Orc antagonists when Tolkien's backstory works perfectly? The Azog-Bolg storyline should have been kept as simple as possible.

I was really looking forward to the Battle of Azanulbizar but found the movie adaptation somewhat disappointing. Azog becomes the primary antagonist of Thorin & Company because of an extreme hatred of Thorin himself. Azog beheads Thrór in the battle (not as in the Appendices), Thorin battles Azog and cuts off the orc’s forearm. Inexplicably, the orcs carry their leader back into Moria, the dwarves claim victory, and Thorin assumes Azog dies. Azog sticks an iron claw on his forearm (which without difficulty, he can apparently change) and swears vengeance on the “Dwarf-scum”.

The creation of Azog’s revenge seems to be a superfluous sub-plot for the film. If Peter Jackson did want to have this storyline, it seems a better tactic might have been to have Azog fighting at Azanulbizar with his son Bolg; having Azog kill Thrór, then have Thorin (or better Dain) kill Azog, and have Bolg retreat. Azog is a pointless addition when the character needed already exists; his name is Bolg. It would also save Legolas and Tauriel from making the even more pointless trip to Mount Gundabad. In The Battle of the Five Armies Azog is completely inept at his job, and only survives this long because of narrative convenience.

The whole Azog-Bolg storyline is a mess. A lot of this has to do with the last minute production changes, switching about what roles Azog, Bolg, and Yaznag would fill and whether to go with practical effects or CGI. Azog's CGI is great. I don't have any qualms regarding that.


AshNazg
Gondor


Jul 1 2015, 10:03am

Post #18 of 66 (2864 views)
Shortcut
Things that don't make sense... [In reply to] Can't Post

1. He hates dwarves and Thorin especially

No reason is given as to why he's so determined to specifically wipe out Durin's line. But I guess he's an orc, he's evil, he's "sworn" to do so. So this one can just about slide

2. ...after maiming him.

Okay, so what actually happens here? Azog kills Thror, then Thrain tries to get revenge. Azog knocks Thrain down and cuts off his finger for the ring (implying he's already working for Sauron).

But then he takes Thrain prisoner, which makes cutting his finger off a bit pointless, then attacks Thorin. Thorin cuts his arm off, but for some reason doesn't kill him? Then Azog somehow escapes, is dragged inside. Then Balin says "the enemy was defeated" so how did the orcs escape and why are the dwarves not living in Moria? Then they keep Thrain alive for ages and finally decide to kill him when Gandalf turns up. Crazy

3. After many decades he allies with Sauron who aids him in locating Thorin.

Why does he wait so long? He was already working for Sauron, so why not go after Thorin as soon as he's healed or send Bolg after him? Why is he even chasing Thorin if Sauron's plan is to march upon Erebor anyway? Can't Azog just kill Thorin when he gets there? Why does Sauron decide the best time to march to Erebor and team up with Smaug happens to be exactly when the dwarves decide to reclaim it? Could't he have done all of this some other time?

Nothing happens for decades, then suddenly its, "Oh hey, Azog go get Thorin now, no wait come back you have to lead my army to the place where Thorin is going to be. Or you could, you know, continue to chase Thorin and meet the army when it gets there. But I guess that wouldn't give Legolas someone to fight. Tell you what, send your son after him... no wait, bring him back, he has to go to Gundabad now and lead those orcs to the place where everyone was heading anyway.

4. Bolg steps into a deputy commander role. He gathers a second army, which would have overwhelmed the good guys, if not for the aerial reinforcements

Okay, so all of these questions can be answered if you just say that it was a messy plan and the bad guys were improvising, and there were a few coincidences. But you need to remember this is a movie, the ultimate question you need to ask is "How does this serve the story?". In what way does it serve the story to have Bolg get chased away by Legolas, meet up with Azog run back to Gundabad and lead an army that has no impact on the battle whatsoever. You can say "this might have happene if it wasn't for reinforcements" but ultimately, it's like setting up a bomb that doesn't go off, you have this ticking clock and there's no climax, it just falls flat and leaves everyone confused.

I'm not sure what doesn't make sense.

It just about holds together and makes sense if you don't think too much, but what doesn't make sense is why the writers had it play out this way, when they could have done an infinite number of alternative plans that could have served the story better and made more sense. One of which is in the book, and had far fewer plot holes.

I don't mind them changing stuff, but I don't understand when they take plot lines that were perfectly fine and edit them with no apparent benefit to the story and with so many inconsistencies and confusing plot holes. Either leave it alone or actually improve and expand it, don't change things for the sake of change even when it doesn't make sense.


(This post was edited by AshNazg on Jul 1 2015, 10:06am)


Spriggan
Tol Eressea

Jul 1 2015, 11:17am

Post #19 of 66 (2835 views)
Shortcut
That's quite long so I'll split up replies: Intro, 1. and 2. [In reply to] Can't Post

So I would say there are two categories of things in your post overall. The first are further refinements of problems with the problems you first stated and the second is information the audience is not given.

This second category, to my mind, is not inherently an issue of things not making sense (though it can be in certain circumstances). We can ask any questions of a text or film - why did A happen, why didn't it happen the day before, what happened the week after etc etc but this is of infinite breadth and regression. Just as in the book we can ask why didn't Gandalf figure out the Ring's identity sooner or why did Sauron return from the East after 400 years not 350 etc. the stories are not inherently obliged to provide answers to any question an audience can conceive of. This doesn't mean things don't make sense.

The exception is where the story prompts a question in the foreground of the story - say in most murder mysteries it would be difficult to say that there wasn't an issue of the audience never found out who the killer was.

So onto the points, with that as a background distinction:

1. I think so. Just as if Tolkien tells us that once race or individual hates another fiercely, we are happy to accept that without demanding further explanation. Similarly, I think we can be happy that the story starts at a certain point and we can't see the entire history of Moria being taken by orcs, back to it being a dwarven Kingdom, why it was created in the first place etc.

2. So yes, Thrain is subdued and the ring removed (not sure why this is pointless?) then taken hostage. Whether Azog was under instructions, sensed power, was acting for himself or some combination we aren't sure (but the film doesn't ask us this and nor does it make any difference to the story. Thorin maims him in a last gasp effort and looks mighty shocked - he does not instantly follow up with a kill and the camera cuts away. We are not shown but are left, surely, to imagine the tide of battle sweeps them apart - and Azog himself is bourn away. (Again - this is a case of detail not shown but nothing fails to make sense about it)
The orcs are defeated on the field of battle but we then are offered two options as the audience - the reader can imagine the Balrog incident, the non-reader the simpler route that the heavy losses we are told of on the dwarven side precluded an assault on Moria itself (an extra half line here would have defined the latter but precluded the former so one picks one's poison).
They keep Thrain alive and torture him for information. He is doubly imprisoned and is only killed when he is about to escape.


(This post was edited by Spriggan on Jul 1 2015, 11:18am)


Spriggan
Tol Eressea

Jul 1 2015, 11:35am

Post #20 of 66 (2824 views)
Shortcut
3. Why did he wait. [In reply to] Can't Post

Depends on the "he" I think. I'm not sure the history of Azog and Sauron's relationship is defined, as you suggest. By the time of the story there is clearly a bargain of some sort between the two for Thorin's head in exchange for war leadership.

So the question you are really asking is why didn't Sauron do Azog a favour earlier rather than serving his own purposes. Well, that's not really in Sauron's character I would suggest! (And certainly not following a heavy failure outside Moria, if the relationship was of that nature at that time).

I would think it was obviously the case that Azog couldn't find Thorin after whatever period of recovery. Sauron assists and promises Azog his head but only at a time that suits his own plans.

Why chase him? - clearly Thorin would be easier to kill on the road than behind Erebor's walls from Azog's perspective and Sauron didn't want the company interfering in his plans for Smaug.

Just as in the book, the question of why beings like Sauron and Gandalf didn't act in some other year than the one they did is not shared. We could ask the question many times over of the DG plot in the text for example but equally there is no issue of it not making sense that they acted when they did. We might well imagine that Thorin's company itself along with Radagast and Gandalf contributed to Sauron's marching slot, in the specific case.

Instead I would say it is:
1. Try to kill Thorin on the road unawares
2. Thorin and the WC progress the issue
3. So it is time for the army to march with its leader
4. However this is clearly slower so send another hunter for a second chance on the road
5. The elves progress the issue
6. Bring reinforcements to address the elves

I'm not sure what is illogical about the above sequence - again unless we imagine Sauron as a compassionate employer who puts his employees needs first. An unlikely scenario, I think.


Spriggan
Tol Eressea

Jul 1 2015, 11:44am

Post #21 of 66 (2818 views)
Shortcut
4. and conclusion. [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm a bit foxed by the idea that "the ticking bomb that doesn't go off" is being described as unusual or confusing. This happens in stories all the time. Impending doom is averted, overwhelming odds overcome at the last minute. I'm confused that you seem to be painting a picture of the typical story being one where the bomb goes off at the end!

Indeed, we need look no further than the Black Gate for a comparison - a further overwhelming army is poised to eliminate our remaining goodies. It is averted against the odds at the last moment. I'm not sure I've ever heard this described as confusing, as a premise.

I totally agree there were infinite options but I'm not sure what is so confusing about the one selected or, perhaps, why the confusion bar is set so low. Let me offer a comparison, since you mention the text. Using the same confusion bar level, take a look at the DG entries in the appendices and have a go at explaining Gandalf and Sauron's reasons and timing for action and inaction?


NoelGallagher
Rohan


Jul 1 2015, 12:07pm

Post #22 of 66 (2807 views)
Shortcut
Respect, DainPig. [In reply to] Can't Post

You open a lot of new threads with even more responds.
Seems you really hit the teeth of time CoolWink


Michelle Johnston
Rohan


Jul 1 2015, 5:25pm

Post #23 of 66 (2735 views)
Shortcut
It started badly [In reply to] Can't Post

He was parachuted into AUJ to give the new film structure a climax. The great weight of criticism toward that first film from many people who stopped coming here after the first film, was directed at Azog.

For many Tolkien fans the villains are not desperately important other than they have to work visually. There isn't a need to give them a powerful and well rounded backstory. On that level as the Tolkien villain he was fine for some.

What I think you can say is after Saurons withdrawal and the worms demise the antagonist cannot just pop up at the end of the movie and kill Thorin.

To begin with Conan Azog was connected to a much richer DG story which involved Radagast /Beorn/Thrain/Gandalf and a denouement with Galadriel which you see a truncated version of in the film. Presumably after his death at the hands of Galadriel Bolg would have been used at the BOFA but Conan Azog became Conan Bolg and the Azanulbizar story line was developed in tandem so Daniels arrangement was not feasible thats a practical point I agree with Daniel..

As someone who sees the films as a missed opportunity I think there was enormous potential to discover a little more about Bolg the son of Azog, itself a unique proposition and the Orcs mysterious origins. The antipathy between the house of azog and the house of durin was worth exploring not the repeated decapitating of heads hands and fingers but something much more meaningful rooted in Tolkiens myths about Orcs and Dwarves.

Just one other point which touches on A N's concerns I have come to the conclusion I do not enjoy a particular story telling technique which Sir Peter employs. He has a habit of explaining story development through constant exposition whereas i much prefer stories that unfold through the dramatic incident . Just two examples :-

1) If Gandalf having gone into Dol Gulder knowing "He has not regained his full strength" comes across :-

a) A strapped up Beorn.

b) A demented Thrain who he heals tells him whats going down and tries to rescue him and is

c) Beguiled by Sauron we have never seen

That would have been a revelation and exciting.

1) If Thorin Dain Thranduil Bard and Gandalf had been in debate when out of the blue the antagonist (whom we have previously met and know of his cache as a an antagonist) turns up with an army.

That would have been startling and exciting.

Sir Peter on the other hand explains everything before it has happened. Check out Beorns conversation with Gandalf over the nine. To much information as they say.

That of course is an argument in favour of keep the narrative straightforward, tight and clear as it moves forward and giving the sophistication to the characters that tell the story.

My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.


Mr. Arkenstone (isaac)
Tol Eressea


Jul 1 2015, 9:02pm

Post #24 of 66 (2660 views)
Shortcut
because he is bad :) [In reply to] Can't Post

Joking but its a very cool design and I actually like him a lot, whom Im not so happy is Bolg, its not so characteristic and powerfull, fearsome orc nontheless but azog is more iconic

The flagon with the dragon has the brew that is true

Survivor to the battle for the fifth trailer

Hobbit Cinema Marathon Hero



Milieuterrien
Rohan

Jul 1 2015, 11:08pm

Post #25 of 66 (2624 views)
Shortcut
They had no other choice than explaining their own plot [In reply to] Can't Post

For nobody would have found its premises elsewhere than in the movie.
That's the specificity of 'fleshing up' a story.

- The Hobbit book needed an upgrade to get at the level :

1) of the story itself (magnitude of the Middle-Earth traveled)
2) of LOTR

- The surplus plot couldn't be too complicated

With Azog and Bolg you have two villains conducting two armies. So the Battle of the Five armies gains its title, plain and clear
Bolg is a little less than Azog but he obviously hasn't the same character : he's less talkative

Would have it helped if Azog and Bolg had shared long dialogues ?
In fact they did, each on their own way :

Azog's main dialogue is with Thorin : he's nightmarizing him, and it ends interestingly
Bolg's main dialogue is with Legolas. In both trilogies, Legolas is no less important than Thorin, but he had been a little underdevelopped in LOTR. He needed some background. Legolas is mainly a fighter and doesn't speak very much, but the few he said became famous : "They're taking the Hobbits to Isengard", or "A diversion". So he needed an equaly taciturn/fighter opponent

Relation between Azog and Bolg is interesting
Azog is clearly the leader and the elder, but Bolg shows some autonomy :

At their first encounter in the movie, Bolg's wharg is not far from biting Azog, so we see that Bolg doesn't show much respect for his 'father'
Later on, Bolg lies at the face of Azog when he declares that Legolas and the Elves flew.

Further than that, you have to compare Azog as well as Bolg with the other Orc captains shown in the Hobbit (The Goblin King) and LOTR (Gothmog and the two Uruk Hai leaders) : none of them can be confused, even if all of them are cruel and brutal.

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.