|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hanzkaz
Rohan
Jul 2 2015, 8:56am
Post #26 of 66
(3009 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think one of the reasons people dislked Azog -
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
- was because his existence during Bilbo's time pretty much negated the original version of the Dwarf-Orc Wars. It's a bit like how Star Wars fans reacted to Disney's new SW canon which more or less ignores the original Star Wars Expanded Universe.
Personally, I could understand why they needed another villain like Azog to oppose the good guys, but I had hoped the 'new' version of his story would be more closer to the original than what we eventually got, especially how he met his end.
For myself, I would have preferred it if it had been Dain who eventually killed Azog in BOTFA, instead of Thorin doing the standard Hollywood movie thing and gaining his 'revenge' against his old foe. The proof of his redemption might have come across even more strongly if the son of Thrain had fallen protecting his friends and companions, showing his realisation that not only were they more important than the wealth of Erebor but also vengeance against his hated enemy.
From the makers of 'The Lord of the Rings' comes the sequel to Peter Jackson's Hobbit Trilogy -
'The War in the North, Part I : The Sword in the Tomb'.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Jul 2 2015, 9:19am
Post #27 of 66
(3007 views)
Shortcut
|
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”.
First, far from being inexplicable, the orcs' reason for carrying their injured leader to safety seem to me to be so obvious that it needs no explanation. What else were they to do - leave him to die? Attempt to attend to his injury with the battle going on all round them?
Or do you mean that Balin's claim of victory was inexplicable? Again, it doesn't seem so to me. The battle carries on but without their leader the orcs are less effective and the dwarves eventually gain the upper hand, though the scale of their losses makes it at best a pyrrhic victory. It's a victory only in the sense that they are the last ones left standing, without the strangth or the will to fight on (and that's straight out of Tolkien). As for Azog and his prosthetics, there's a superb literary precendent for that, gadget changes included - Captain Hook! 
I'd say that Peter Jackson did have a good reason for needing two Orc commanders: the Dol Guldur plotline. Tolkien had no Dol Guldur army but they wanted to introduce one in the final battle, Bolg's army from Gundabad, as in the book, and a Dol Guldur army, which needed its own commander. They could have invented an Orc for that as they did for Saruman's Uruks - would that have been better than prolonging Azog? It might have been, but it's hard to say when they didn't do it. It is obvious, as you say, that they experimented with a lot of possible plotlines that didn't work out. Time was clearly against them, and maybe other problems we know nothing about.
And was Azog so inept in the battle? His army had almost won - would have won - had it not been for the eagles. And surely he survived because he was directing his armies from a high vantage point where it was not easy to reach him....
Just a few thoughts....
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Jul 2 2015, 9:36am
Post #28 of 66
(3003 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Well, if Azog did 'just pop up'.......
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I suppose there might be some justification in this comment
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.
...but Azog has been with us through three films, pursuing Thorin for his own reasons and his master's.
Sauron has suffered huge setbacks to his plan in the death of Smaug (if he knows about it at the time his Dol Guldur army marches - I'm not sure he does) and in the intervention of the White Council but he is far from beaten. In this version of the story the march of his army from Dol Guldur to the Mountain with Azog at their head was his long-term plan which the White Council forced him to launch before he was ready. So in no sense is Azog just 'popping up'. He is fulfilling the orders he was given in DoS and at the same time trying to secure his own revenge on Thorin, as foreshadowed in AUJ. Like it or dislike it, it's a consistent, thought-out storyline running through the three films.
For myself I'm absolutely delighted that the film didn't explore the origins of the Orcs. They did throw in an oblique reference to the relationship between Azog and Bolg, and for me that was enough. Seems to me that the place for exploring the history of the Orcs, in so far as Tolkien gave them a history, is in the Reading Room here and on other Tolkien forums, in Tolkien society journals and in books like the History of Middle Earth series - not in a film of The Hobbit. But that's just me!
|
|
|
AshNazg
Gondor
Jul 2 2015, 12:05pm
Post #29 of 66
(2981 views)
Shortcut
|
|
We clearly view films very differently
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
While you look at the issue from an in-world perspective where events just take place for no larger reason. Things just happen and while we need to know who the killer is, the audience doesn't have to know the details of exactly how they did it because people should read between the lines. The only plot holes from this perspective are ones of in-world contradiction. King Kong got flown to New York, we just didn't need to see it happen.
I prefer to view films through the eyes of the artist. To question what the frame or the scene is trying to tell me at the time. As an event, a ticking bomb not going off makes total sense. But as a plot device its quite famously (as popularised by Hitchcock) one of the biggest mistakes a storyteller can make. You work your audience up and then say "danger averted" when everyone is expecting a bang.
I will also challange the concept that Tolkien's series of events make less sense. The only plot hole I've heard regarding Tolkien's story is why it takes Thrain so long to die. But in the films it takes even longer, and Thrain doesn't even have the map and key that Sauron is after in the films so its surely harder to explain?
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Jul 2 2015, 1:23pm
Post #30 of 66
(2963 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't think I follow all of that.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I wonder if there are any specific examples in my responses that you are thinking of?
So, from what I think you are saying, yes, I look for stories not to have contradictions. I also think that stories obviously do not, cannot and should not expound every background detail. So, yes, to take what I think is your example - if we see King Kong being loaded onto a plane, then I don't see a plot hole in not being shown the full flight plan, the passing scenery or the identity of the pilot.
It isn't a case of "things just happen" (though of course there are elements of that in stories, just as in life) but of the story not detailing an infinite regression of causes, timings, agents etc.
I'm not sure I follow the notion that I am not seeing the film through the eyes of an artist (and wonder if I should feel faintly aggrieved!) I genuinely, however, have no idea what you mean when you suggest that danger being averted is a big mistake. I can't see how one could suggest that any story where the bomb, or equivalent, doesn't explode and kill everyone is in error! (Or at least not without casting aside the majority of stories ever told, not least Tolkien's).
My challenge to you on the DG book plot line was to take your own bar and apply it (specifically your concerns about explicit causes, full information on every event, justifications of timing etc.) If we take a look at the book, then how do we answer similar questions of why do the Wise take no action in TA 1,100; what Sauron or Gandalf are doing for almost a millennium; what Gandalf is doing that is more important for the 3 years before 2,063; why does Sauron stay away for exactly 400 years etc. etc. We can ask many, many such questions of the story and find no answers.
Now, I wouldn't say that these are plot holes, but by your own bar for the films, i would say that you are suggesting they must be. For me they are simply examples of information which is not detailed. Do you see what I mean?
|
|
|
AshNazg
Gondor
Jul 2 2015, 2:28pm
Post #31 of 66
(2955 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I see your viewpoint, but I disagree with it...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I see no evidence that swapping Bolg and Azog around serves any function to the story other than to give Legolas a fight scene. I see no evidence of Azog's resurrection having any significant contribution to the plot that could otherwise have been achieved with the simple inclusion of Bolg alone. I see no benefit to the plot of Gandalf finding Thrain in Dol Guldur years after his usefulness to the story has expired.
These things may make sense within the world, but they do not make sense from a storytelling perspective.
My reference to King Kong is one of the most well known movie plot-holes. We don't see King Kong loaded onto any vehicle and the only boat is too small to support him. No explanation is given how King Kong ends up in New York. From your perspective this is fine, because the audience is expected to read between the lines, but from a film-making perspective it's just a way of avoiding a problem with the plot. Peter Jackson clearly learned this technique when he remade King Kong and used it multiple times in The Hobbit - particularly where eagles are concerned.
I'll use the same example I use for my students with the bomb analogy. Imagine watching Speed. The bus will explode if they drop below 50 miles an hour. Now there are two rules here. As Hitchcock says, the audience must know at all times that the bomb is present. If the audience doesn't know, and the bomb goes off as a surprise, then there is 10 seconds of shock with no suspense.
Hitchcock then says the bomb MUST NOT go off. By which he means the danger must always be averted, he gives the example of someone throwing the bomb out of the window and having it explode outside.
But equally the bomb must always go off. If in Speed, they resolved the issue by simply disarming the bomb, with no explosion, then the audience receives that sense of relief but loses the sense of climax. This is why it's important the bomb goes out the window and explodes somewhere else, the danger is averted, but we still need the explosion.
In The Hobbit The eagles fly in and diffuse the bomb before anyone even sees it. It has no impact and just fizzles away. It's only function in the story is to build false suspense, and while audiences may not understand the theory, they receive a sense of being cheated out of something, of being emotionally manipulated by something that in the end poses no apparent threat.
The wise take no action because they do not know that The Necromancer is Sauron until TA 2850. Sauron is gathering his strength in Dol Guldur in preparation for moving back to Mordor. Gandalf is wandering Middle-earth in his own business, at one point looking for Thrain in Moria in an attempt to relocate the remaining rings of power.
The thing is, PJ's version of events do not fix these "plot holes" so using them as examples against Tolkien's order doesn't work, since they exist in both. There's nothing in PJ's version that makes more sense than Tolkien's. All PJ has done, rather than improving any existing problems, is convoluted Tolkien's rich and complex tapestry in order to give his main character different (more "cinematic") motivations at the expense of consistency and continuity within the storytelling.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Jul 2 2015, 3:24pm
Post #32 of 66
(2947 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Something just occurred to me on your bomb point....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But equally the bomb must always go off. If in Speed, they resolved the issue by simply disarming the bomb, with no explosion, then the audience receives that sense of relief but loses the sense of climax. This is why it's important the bomb goes out the window and explodes somewhere else, the danger is averted, but we still need the explosion.
... are you sure that this is so? It seems to me to fly in the face of umpteen dramas involving bombs where the tension is almost unbearable but the bomb does not explode. There's all the business of carefully dismantling the bomb - deciding which wire to cut - the click which might mean safety and might mean that the person doing the bomb disposal has just killed him/her self and anyone who happens to be nearby. In those cases the bomb doesn't explode. There used to be a very successful TV series based around this - 'Danger UXB' - about a bomb disposal officer and his men. They kept the tension running by occasionally letting one explode, so you could never be quite sure, but they didn't all explode and they didn't need to. It was enough to know that they might.
So could I suggest to you that we don't need the explosion every time. What we need as audience, I think, is the uncertainty.
|
|
|
brotherbeck
Rivendell
Jul 2 2015, 3:25pm
Post #33 of 66
(2938 views)
Shortcut
|
Even though I am not a fan of Azog or his plot line in the films, I will admit that I think his ultimate design is better than the original one they had gone with during filming, the one that eventually became Yazneg I believe. I think Yazneg is a pretty terrible design, but I still think Azog would have been infinitely better had he been played by an actual actor on set with possibly some CGI touch ups here and there.
I personally find the entire Azog / Bolg plot line to be very convoluted and confusing, but that could very well be because I think it is so poorly written and executed that I just check out of the films whenever those things are on screen. A scene such as the one where the fully CGI Azog calls the fully CGI Bolg to him inside of the fully CGI Dol Guldor and they talk is the epitome of all the things I dislike most about this trilogy and they all sort of come to a head in that scene: rushed and sloppy CGI; changes that seem to just be for the sake of changing things and actually make everything much more confusing; focus being in the complete and utter wrong place.
It is painfully obvious watching the films that they did not have a solid script written ahead of time and were just shuffling characters and plot lines all around right up until the release date and Azog's storyline is one of the threads hurt most by this. The script isn't merely just to tell the actors what line they are supposed to be saying at any given moment - having a script ahead of time and sticking to it ensures that your film makes sense in the end, to say nothing of how a well written script can have themes and resonate deeper.
I am glad that some people seem to really enjoy a character like Azog and his storyline in the films, even to the point of calling his storyline an improvement over the writings of Tolkien, but to me they honestly just seem extremely sloppy and slapped together at the last minute, needlessly confusing, and in the end an ultimately pointless distraction from the main story.
I understand the desire to beef up the role of a main villain for the trilogy even though I think it is a little bit of a 'screenwriting 101' cliche that these films didn't need, but ultimately Azog just isn't compelling or interesting enough to carry as much focus as they put on him. During the climactic fight on Ravenhill, there are so many other far more exciting and dramatic and interesting things happening elsewhere that it is extremely frustrating when they choose to only focus on Thorin vs. Azog and Legolas vs. Bolg. And then the film rushes through to the ending skipping out on things like explaining what happened after the battle to Erebor and the gold and how the different sides resolved their conflict that once again Azog ends up seeming like a big, dumb distraction who hijacks the story of these films at all the wrong times.
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Jul 2 2015, 3:32pm
Post #34 of 66
(2943 views)
Shortcut
|
|
This then seems like a third category of objection.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
So, I'm not quite sure but it sounds as if you are happy that:
1. The points mentioned do in fact make sense within the story
2. We do in fact have sufficient information provided, so as not to have plot holes by omission
3. And, thus, as you say, we are on to the question of whether these choices are better or worse than than those in the book.
I do think that 3. feels like a very distinct question to me and a good distance from where we started (especially with the specific introduction that said these issues were not based on a dislike of changes from the book plot!)
To use the murder mystery example, we have moved from saying that the identity of the killer didn't make sense or was left unmentioned to frowning upon the killer not being the same person as in the source text - a different crime altogether, surely?
If you meant it in that sense, then the King Kong analogy sounds like it is a question which is legitimately prompted by the text. Just so, and as I said in an earlier post, if we had left Gandalf in a cage at the end of DOS and next seen him ride into Dale that would be a legitimate plothole of omission. This would be a question the story foregrounds (how will Gandalf escape?) but either there is no possible answer to it or the audience has to do considerable work to imagine an answer to it.
But I can't think which aspect of the Azog story line fits the bill. What are you thinking of here?
I fear the very specific details of the bomb analogy don't read across. I'm not sure how an army can "go off elsewhere" or how it can both build suspense but also pose no apparent threat. More to the point I'm not at all sure how we can see the situation as differing from that at the Black Gate, to take the closest example, but only one of a thousand other stories.
As I say, I wouldn't describe the DG questions as plot holes but am not sure if you would. You seem to say they are not and then that they are. I suspect this does illustrate the tension between what you wish to argue is an issue in one format and yet are happy to embrace in the other. I'm left wondering to what extent the dislike is a result of the "problems" and to what extent the "problems" are a result of the dislike.
PS I would be happy to share thoughts on the relative merits of story choices in the different media, but that really is a different question for me.
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Jul 2 2015, 6:17pm
Post #35 of 66
(2903 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Oh and just on DG in the text as an example
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
To highlight what I mean about the differing bar and whether we are a generous audience. Surely we must be generous to have our Istari arrive from Valinor with the express purpose of thwarting Sauron and almost immediately receive a lead that one of his chief lieutenants has taken over the Greenwood and respond .... by not so much as looking into it for a thousand years. We must be generous to have no details of what kept Gandalf so erroneously busy elsewhere and be happy that we can read between the lines and fill in a millennium sized blank. We are generous to allow the coincidence (in published works) that Sauron and the WC having waited for centuries chose the same year as Thorin to act. We must be generous, on your terms especially to allow for things happening for "no reason" such as Sauron returning after 400 years. Etc. etc.
Now, of course, I don't think there should be any problem with being generous. None of these issues are directly contradictory and none of the absent info amounts to a plot hole by omission, in my book, so I don't think we should seek to create problems where none need exist.
But I think we should, in my view, be even handed in our generosity! If Tolkien did not but Jackson had Gandalf failing to investigate for centuries, I fear we would see a plot hole. If Jackson had Sauron failing to find the map and key on Thrain, where Tolkien's Sauron searched throughly, we would say that it made no sense, I rather suspect.
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Rohan
Jul 2 2015, 8:54pm
Post #36 of 66
(2855 views)
Shortcut
|
|
DM I think you have misunderstood me.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I am saying that the film makers decision to prepare us for the antagonists intervention in the battle unlike the book make sense.
I also understand, however last minute it was, how they developed the Azog and Bolg story line.
There is a much bigger topic underlying all of this and it is connected with
1) "The antagonist role" and how it might have been developed.
2) The notion that 60 years before the war of the ring Sauron "who has not regained his full strength and is not ready to reveal himself" Gandalfs "early" dialogue, is able to prosecute open war and send his leader of legions into battle. in the LOTR films Sauron makes a pre emptive strike because he is afraid of what the heir of elendil may become particularly with the ring abroad. It is a war long prepared and he has, unlike DG, declared himself openly and is ready for open rather than covert support of war and still his hand is forced. For me that is viable traction of the plot movement. I have just run the white rider section of the TTT and it is all perfectly clear builds up tension and makes sense of Saurons coming behaviour.
In the Hobbit films he has incarcerated old grey beard he has set up links with the dragon whom is still alive and yet he is ready to release an orc army of tens of thousands on what I am not sure because the White Council will attack him or because 13 dwarves are still abroad.
You say the White Council forced his hand are you saying he guessed they would come for Gandalf so he unleashed the army on Erebor which is held by a live dragon who no one else has ever been prepared to go up against, how does that work?
There is also the tradition of the LOTR that when he is ready to unleash his forces to prosecute a long prepared war on Minus Tirith for supremacy in middle earth he sends forth his deadliest servants the Nazgul but correctly they remain hidden in DG in a veil of shadows as neither he nor they are ready to unleash the storm, that will come 60 years later.
As you know up until October 2013 the palantir was in the DOS early run throughs and was a perfect tool for foreshadowing his long term plans also at that stage Azog was on the battlements ready to attack the company, who knows precisely what all this was to mean but it might indicate how we ended with an army being unleashed for no clearly communicated reason.
All of this could have been avoided if Sauron had a semi detached relationship with the chief antagonist who raises the Orcs of The mountains and marches on Erebor, like Bard and Thranduil, after the dragon has died. The antagonist would have known Sauron would have approved because Sauron in his role as behind the scenes sponsor had encouraged him and or father to occupy Moria and Gunderbad ; to take out the third Dwarven stronghold for his own needs and to please his sponsor would have been a slam dunk.
I have Gunderbad and Moria now i will have that bunch of vagabonds, take Erebor and my revenge. That simply builds on a perfectly clear book plot all you need to do is include a version of the appendices into the films to make clear why there is such animosity between the Azogs and the Thrors and the Children of Aule and the Children of Morgoth. Tolkien of course gave us the answer they are both on the outside of the music created by a foolish Ainu and a fallen one.
The link between the antagonist and Sauron is made with the palantir whom presumably Gandalf was teased with according to those in the know.
My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.
(This post was edited by Michelle Johnston on Jul 2 2015, 9:00pm)
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
Jul 2 2015, 9:09pm
Post #37 of 66
(2851 views)
Shortcut
|
|
He's a one-dimensional bad guy
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
He swore to wipe out the line of Durin - okay, I guess that makes him a bad guy. Bottom line is, I've seen some FINE performances from actors playing villians (Christopher Lee, for instance), and it's probably not Manu Bennet's fault since he was given so little to work with. A little bit of depth goes a long way - Thorin cut off his arm? Azog cut off Thror's head! That's not really character-building. And that scene where he killed one of his Orcs at Weathertop, what was that? A definite eye-rolling moment, like I've seen that in a thousand movies. There's a difference in what bad guys DO and what bad guys ARE. We only saw what he could do. I swear the Uruk-hai that Aragorn killed at the end of LoTR had more personality than Azog.
Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Jul 2 2015, 10:16pm
Post #38 of 66
(2831 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Not really, I simply answered what you said....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Whatever plot developments any of us may wish they had made - whatever ideas, half glimpsed in the concept art, they seem to have tested and dropped (and for whatever reason) - the film is as it is, and it seems to me that plotlines work reasonably well.
Realistically I don't believe there was ever room in The Hobbit film for a Palatir, discussion of the origins of orcs, the introduction of Aule and Morgoth and the Music of the Ainur. Much as I love the Silmarillion, and I do, I think all that would have been far too complicated for this film.
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Rohan
Jul 3 2015, 6:20am
Post #39 of 66
(2787 views)
Shortcut
|
Hi DM,
Again your misunderstanding my point and arguing against something which I have not advocated.
I am not saying there should be a full blown academic discussion about orcs or a reference to the Music i am simply reminding the historian in you that the storytelling could have communicated the very real antipathy between the Dwarves and Orcs and communicated it (through Gandalf) in a way which made the audience aware of there fallen nature and there particular hatred for each other. It could have been achieved in a sentence and be oblique enough not to break the silmarillion rules and this is the real point stayed true to Tolkiens sub created philosophy.
It makes no sense of the Sauron we know, who bides his time, and finally strikes against all of middle earth both North and South 60 years later, would declare himself openly from Dol Gulder. He declares himself ten years later from Mordor when he is ready. The Dol Gulder army is a contrivance to create easily explained jeopardy as a cliff hanger for film 2 whereas Tolkiens Gunderbad army reacted in a convincing way according to the unfolding story.
What I was describing was driven by the philosophy that should have informed the story telling rather than what we received. A story about a before world fallen creature whose time had not yet come who is drawn out by the Istari and forced to withdraw whilst not fully re integrated and yet prosecutes a long planned strategic open overt war against the free peoples. That does not make sense within Tolkien or within the portrayal in the films of a Sauron who cannot retain his cohesion without huge short term spiritual effort. To argue the trigger is 13 lone Dwarves who at that point are entirely politically isolated fugitives does not work.
I am interested in your remark that giving key characters a clearer historical perspective is considered too complicated. What is complicated about these films is the unexplained story lines and lack of clearly defined motivation set against over complicated and overlong action sequences which do not stand up to scrutiny or have any internal logic.
I have no agenda to attack or defend the films I simply try and understand what has been achieved after all the hard work in Wellington and the more I look out of respect to them and people like you and Bom the more it unwinds.
My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.
(This post was edited by Michelle Johnston on Jul 3 2015, 6:21am)
|
|
|
AshNazg
Gondor
Jul 3 2015, 7:51am
Post #40 of 66
(2776 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Like any theory there are exceptions...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
In the case of "realistic" bomb disposal films, such as Danger UXB and The Hurt Locker, the audience's expectation is that the bomb will be disarmed - because that's kind of the point of the movie. Similarly, in a film that is bomb-centric the audience doesn't always have to know about the bomb. It comes down to genre, subject matter and context. We don't always have to build tension, but by rule of thumb it's the better way to go.
If you build up tension about something like a bomb or an army, you need to fulfil the audience's expectations by either having the bomb explode and not hurt anyone (which 99% of all movies do) or have the main character disarm it - which usually requires cleverly getting an explosion in there somehow anyway. Imagine watching a movie about a bomb disposal team, there's a bomb that the whole movie has been building up to... and before the team even gets to it another force comes in from nowhere and disarms it. That's effectively what the eagles do in BoFA. They relieve the tension, with no sense of accomplishment. This isn't necessarily wrong, films can do what they want, but it's generally considered bad storytelling - unless somehow done "right", which is always subjective.
But this is veering off topic from Azog.
(This post was edited by AshNazg on Jul 3 2015, 7:55am)
|
|
|
Fredeghar Wayfarer
Lorien
Jul 3 2015, 9:10am
Post #41 of 66
(2759 views)
Shortcut
|
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.
I hated Azog because he just seemed so unnecessary and clumsily written. If the movies needed an antagonist for Thorin, Bolg would have been a fine choice. The book already established him as the leader of the goblin army and gave him a reason for hating Thorin and the dwarves (the killing of Azog at Azanulbizar). In fact, Bolg seeking revenge for his murdered sire seems like a stronger motivation than Azog wanting to wipe out the line of Durin because...um...he's evil, I guess?
Adding the orc-pack chasing the Company is already a change to the source material. But if the role had been given to Bolg, it would at least have been expansion and development of a minor character in the novel, rather than outright contradiction. I would have been much more open-minded about this change if that had been the case.
|
|
|
Salmacis81
Tol Eressea
Jul 4 2015, 6:10pm
Post #42 of 66
(2674 views)
Shortcut
|
His totally unnecessary presence is one of the things that pretty much ruined PJ's adaptation for me. I've got nothing against the actor's portrayal, and his CGI got better as the trilogy went on, but every time he popped up onscreen, I couldn't stop myself from thinking "You're not even supposed to be alive..." I mean, a 140-years-dead character who's name was mentioned all of two times in the book, suddenly ends up becoming the main villain of the entire trilogy? If I'd heard a rumor that this was going to be the case before the release of AUJ, I'd have thought "No way would PJ ever do THAT!!" Bolg was actually alive and had an active (if minor) role in the book, and I would have had no problem with the writers simply expanding his role and making him the main Orc villain. As you said, having Bolg out to avenge his dead daddy makes much more sense than the unexplained "Azog swore to wipe out the Line of Durin" thing. But apparently the writers thought that would have been too confusing for us viewers.
And it burns my blood whenever I think about Philippa Boyens' comment about how they couldn't have him be dead in the movies because they loved the name "Azog" so much...is that really the kind of thing PJ and his writers base their script decisions on?
(This post was edited by Salmacis81 on Jul 4 2015, 6:22pm)
|
|
|
Salmacis81
Tol Eressea
Jul 4 2015, 6:33pm
Post #43 of 66
(2664 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Excellent analysis Michelle...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
You've made some great points as to why PJ, Ms. Walsh, and Ms. Boyens were simply not up to the task of rewriting The Hobbit/The Quest of Erebor and better tying it into LotR (even if that isn't your intent).
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
Jul 4 2015, 7:28pm
Post #44 of 66
(2655 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Given the fact that Azog and Bolg had been named by Tolkien
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
... and not much else said about them both,
would it have been a good idea to have Azog in a cameo somewhere in the prologue of AUJ and nowhere else ?
Many critics of the movie would have cried that this was a waste of a potential character.
Of course they thought at one moment staying into Tolkien's canon
Of course they discovered they couldn't stay there.
You have one Azog and one Bolg, each of them active and recognizable, each of them orcish in nature,
which has never been, in Tolkien's world, a position where you find fellows exceptional in charisma.
What more could you expect ?
|
|
|
Salmacis81
Tol Eressea
Jul 5 2015, 4:38pm
Post #45 of 66
(2620 views)
Shortcut
|
|
But why couldn't they stay within canon? That's what I don't get...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Given the amount of complaints from critics regarding the Azog subplot in AUJ, I highly doubt that the critics would've cried foul had Azog died at Dimrill Dale like he does in the books.
In my honest opinion, it would have been much, much better to use Azog dying at the hands of either Dain or Thorin at Moria as an impetus to set up Bolg as the main Orc villain (For purposes of streamlining the story, I would have grudgingly accepted them giving Dain's kill to Thorin in this case). Doing it that way would have stemmed at least some of the criticism about PJ taking too many liberties with the story, and it's not really that difficult of a storyline to follow, regardless of the fact that Philippa Boyens and PJ have insisted otherwise. And as for the film fans who don't really care about Azog being resurrected for the story, well I also doubt they would have been complaining about the lack of a live Azog, because for all they knew PJ was just following the books. Even if you actually liked Azog, if he hadn't been inserted into the story you wouldn't have missed him. PJ and his writers had to know that reviving Azog and placing him into the narrative as villain numero uno was going to be a controversial decision with book readers.
And I've never actually heard of any early script where Azog was dead. As far as I'm aware, Azog was always going to be alive in the films, even going back to the del Toro days. So when exactly did they toy with the idea of killing Azog?
(This post was edited by Salmacis81 on Jul 5 2015, 4:40pm)
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Jul 5 2015, 7:45pm
Post #46 of 66
(2597 views)
Shortcut
|
But why couldn't they stay within canon?
It's not that they couldn't; it is that Jackson fell in love with the name Azog and wanted to bring the character into the present of the film(s). He also wanted to streamline the backstory of the heirs of Durin so he simplified the events around the Battle of Moria (Azanulbizar). Gone is an entire war started over the death of Thror. Instead, Thror leads the attempt to retake the ancient city of Moria in the wake of Smaug's occupation of Erebor.
It would have been an easy enough matter to kill off Azog at the Battle of Moria (whether at Dain's hand or Thorin's). As you point out, that still leaves Bolg to seek revenge against the heirs of Durin. If Jackson still wanted a second army of Orcs at the Battle of Five Armies, he could have given Bolg a son or it could have been led by the Great Goblin's successor. The two could have even been combined into a single role.
"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." - Phantom F. Harlock
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Jul 5 2015, 7:46pm)
|
|
|
Salmacis81
Tol Eressea
Jul 5 2015, 8:06pm
Post #47 of 66
(2587 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Oh yeah, I KNOW they could've stayed within the canon...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
My question was aimed at a poster who claimed that they couldn't have. Jackson chose to contradict canon by keeping Azog alive, and both of the reasons I've heard for that (that they loved the name "Azog" so much that they couldn't bear to have him be dead, and that they thought introducing Bolg during the Moria flashback would've been too confusing) are, frankly, really dumb reasons.
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Jul 5 2015, 8:37pm
Post #48 of 66
(2575 views)
Shortcut
|
(Though, as an aside, I find the idea that if Azog had been called Bolg and otherwise exactly the same character this would be an improvement slightly bizarre!)
To the main point, I would say that it is important to distinguish between what is likely to work for those who already know the story and are simply observing a visualisation and those learning the story for the first time on screen.
If we imagined the AUJ flashback replaced with one introducing Azog as a new character, introducing Dain as a new character, introducing Bolg as a new character, explaining the relationship between Azog and Bolg, killing Thror, killing Azog, setting up the conflict between Thorin and Bolg, removing Bolg from the battlefield with a future delay on retribution...well... it's far from obvious that those who don't know the story are going to engage with that in the same way (if you put yourself in their shoes!)
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Jul 5 2015, 9:04pm
Post #49 of 66
(2568 views)
Shortcut
|
(Though, as an aside, I find the idea that if Azog had been called Bolg and otherwise exactly the same character this would be an improvement slightly bizarre!)
I never suggested that. Azog would be the Orc who slew Thror and died at the hand of either Thorin or Dain. Bolg would be the Orc seeking vengeance at the time of Thorin's quest.
If we imagined the AUJ flashback replaced with one introducing Azog as a new character, introducing Dain as a new character, introducing Bolg as a new character, explaining the relationship between Azog and Bolg, killing Thror, killing Azog, setting up the conflict between Thorin and Bolg, removing Bolg from the battlefield with a future delay on retribution...well... it's far from obvious that those who don't know the story are going to engage with that in the same way (if you put yourself in their shoes!)
Well, since we do see more of Dain later in the films, an introduction to him in AUJ (and he is already name-checked in Thorin's account of his meeting with the other Dwarf-clans) does not seem inappropriate. Explaining the relationship between Azog and Bolg supplies the audience with Bolg's motive for pursuing Thorin. Any problems introduced are essentially the same ones we already have with Azog. The bonus is that we learn that Bolg has another goal set by his master Sauron. I don't see that this is any more difficult for the audience to understand than what are are given in the films.
"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." - Phantom F. Harlock
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Jul 5 2015, 9:26pm
Post #50 of 66
(2563 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think that probably illustrates the point.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
That people find it hard to put themselves in the shoes of non-readers! I think trying to achieve all of those introductions, relationships and actions in a single flashback would be very unlikely (though that's not to say we can't imagine alternative ways of doing things).
On the name issue, I meant more generally than in relation to the flashback itself or your post specifically.
|
|
|
|
|
