Azog has been "rubbished" as a cheap villain for hire because that's how he was used in this film set. The hero/villain story here was beyond typical, it was cliche. Someone felt they needed an additional substory for tension so s/he resurrected Azog and had him engaged in a decades-long battle against Thror and his descendants. I thought this was a rather typical hero/villain storyline -- to the point of being trite and predictable. There are tons of stories where the protagonist is relentlessly pursued by the villain until the final confrontation, from "High Noon" to "The Highlander" to the good (original) Star Wars trilogy.

The only twist I saw was with Sauron commanding Azog to focus on HIS priorities rather than Azog's ruthless pursuit of the Durins. Even calling Azog "the doom of the line of Durin" is a bit simplistic since Dain and most of the Company were also of the line of Durin (excepting Bofur, Bifur, and Bombur). At least in introducing Sauron's dictates, we have a rational reason for the pursuit of Thror's line -- Sauron wanted Thror's Ring of Power, one of the few remaining dwarven rings after the others were consumed by dragons. Thorin wasn't focused on Azog initially during the quest simply because he thought Azog was long dead (and indeed he was in the book).

The mutual death scene was a pretty standard plot device to wrap up the substory since they had to kill Thorin and couldn't keep Azog around anymore -- plus the audience was craving Azog's brutal death by then.

Azog like the Kurgan in Highlander is somewhat atypical for a villain in being almost elemental in nature(little if any explanation of his personal motivations, no chance of any change in them), a trait Tolkien did of course also use with Sauron in LOTR. Really though as I said in the opening post I think its more how he's used that's most interesting.

I think this plays a very significant part in Thorins story, rather than being your typical heroes journey where wisdom/morality/toughness are acquired we see Thorin from the very start(both onscreen and chronologically) possesses these qualities. What we then see is the reverse process take place with him increasingly compromised by pride, grudges and the burden of his family legacy whilst being hounded by Azog.

We are moving around here but I see Sauron and Azog's motivation very clearly. They are not driven by a personal story but they both have very clearly defined reasons for their actions over which they take personal ownership. Sauron wants to dominate and control and subsume and replace. Azog wants to humiliate and desecrate anything Dwarven. He is motivated by a highly developed sense of racial hatred which he focuses on the most senior of the Dwarven families. It is no coincidence that he is an Orc who has plundered the most sacred of all Dwarven sites where the father of the Durins awoke. Whilst film Azog does not take book Azog's story he is the same bundle of issues and everything about the death and desecration of Thror is about humiliation of a particular member of family and replacing and dominating.

They both have a highly evolved sense of purpose but I do agree it ain't gonna change they are not up for redemption

I am not sure I agree with this and its important because I think its one of the failings of Thorins portrayal.

From the very beginning we witness :-

1) His reaction to Thranduil whose action whilst flagrant is and should be understandable to a wise man.

2) He only takes the bumbious Hobbit with him "We will do this thing your way" because of Gandalf. He makes it abundantly clear he feels no moral responsibility for Bilbo.

3) His blanket rejection of all Elves is recalcitrant and ill-informed the Elves of Rivendell are Noldor who have the closest affinity with Dwarves and his reaction to Gandalf is petulant.

I am seeing the grudge laden chippy Dwarf from the very beginning weighed down by a host of issues. That is the Thorin we receive and if we step outside of the story I am being critical of such a portrayal. My view is the quest should have been for the Arkenstone from the outset and aside from the quest he has two drivers an expedient determination to achieve the quest manifest in his behaviour towards the anchor relationship with Bilbo and a deep unease about the matter of his father particularly given the nature of his grand fathers death.

In chronological order :-

1) He should positively aim for Imladris and accept Elronds help and then leave with out a by your leave.

2) If he is confronted with Azog he should hold off but the film needs things to happen because of the three film split so I will pass on that.

3) Beorn perfect don't agitate him work round him.

4) Thranduil. He would have compromised but because Thranduil is not a big friend of Dwarves and has a very personal issue with the Durins he just cannot make it.

5) Master/Bard spot on let me take a rain check I will pay you later. ).

There is a very real reason people respond to archetypes. I don't have any problem with them and rather enjoy them more than scripts that are focused on rejecting archetypes (like Ron D. Moore does) but there's a difference between using a archetype in building a story and resorting to a cliche as a plot device out of laziness. The difference here IMO is that there really was no reason for the Azog substory (and hence character) other than wanting some underlying tension spanning all three movies. I think that tension could have been introduced and carried without the Azog storyline simply by working the continuity to LOTR differently.

M O L The post i am now responding to has only just shown up in the string behind mine.

I accept every thing you say about their motivation I see their reasons as clear at a philosophical/spiritual level.

The point about flaws is also fine with me. Its the story telling and plot point motivation created by the Thranduil flashback that seems an unnecessary distraction. I am also puzzled again at the character logic why is the isolationist on the ridge in the first place. We can park that because to use O S words "I do not have faith" in that piece of storytelling.

Just a question you mention going to the Blue Mountains after Moria my understanding in the films is Azanulbizar did not happen immediately after Erebor it was a vain glorious mission to take it from the Blue Mountains. However I see others on the net take the view that Thror lead them to Moria immediately after the loss of the mountains in which case how did Thrain give Gandalf the map and the key if he went straight from Erebor to Moria and was captured.

I took it from the prologue the exodus ended at the Blue Mountains.

M O L Whilst I agree with the general principle that OMNI is proposing that characters can be stereotypical it is what you do with them that is interesting I think the discussion becomes over complicated by bringing in the structural requirements of the Trilogy.

My earlier remark about dealing with character needs rather than structural needs is very relevant. I agree with you that Azog's story is very Tolkienesque and so in Thorins ! However things happen to them which are dictated by structure and thats what people tend to focus on whereas you focus on the characters story. Put simply you have an open view to what is unfolding where a good deal of observational knowingness is applied to these films. "Oh he only put that in to achieve that" rather than "Where has that taken us".

I have found this discussion most interesting because it reminds me of the challenges of structure on story telling.

I didn't avoid anything. I wasn't buying the points you raise in the OP. It sounded like a lot of the pseudo-academic bilge I had to endure in university which is why I cut straight to the chase: Azog was a cliche and his character and use in this trilogy was a cheap plot device. Your OP sought to validate Azog; in my view (hardly universal around here), it failed. I don't really mind plot devices but this one was completely unnecessary while sucking up valuable tens of minutes of screentime. That's something I do mind when those minutes could have been spent telling the story properly. Tha Gandalf flashback sequences that tie TH in with TLOTR already exist, albeit in volumes Sir Peter may not have been authorized to tap from (I don't know the exact state of the licensing for material in Lost Tales or Untold Tales that uses characters and situations provided through TH and TLOTR).

I cited Ron D. Moore because he has specifically come out and said he hates archetypes which is why he "reimagined" Battlestar Galactica the way he did. In my mind, he spent more time trying to tear down or sideline archetypes than in building a believable world or society. I'm obviously in the minority on that score too but it has nothing to do with Tolkien's works other than this discussion of cliches and archetypes (and I don't really much care what people who haven't given much thought to a subject think about it).

Lest this come across as a hate-fest, let me also say Azog comes across quite well as the villain you love to hate and he does push the story along with a frenetic energy that makes the audience forget (or just not understand) that Bilbo's journey there and back again took a year. I just think he does so in a very stereotypical fashion, not at all this unconventional hero/villain relationship you have tried to validate.