Jump to content

The Hobbit: A Long-Expected Spoiler Movie Thread


Werthead

Recommended Posts

I'd wager to say that Azog exists in the movies solely for your later reason, ie someone for Thorin to kill before dying. Bolg could have been the antagonist for all three movies (as it makes sense even from a book perspective) but then Thorin wouldn't have a specific person to kill after being mortally wounded which the pathetic PJ needs.

Why does an adherence to basic movie making principles make someone pathetic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have my criticisms of the film, as will already be apparent: but two that I don't subscribe to are the inclusion of Azog as an antagonist, and Radagast.

As already noted, the way the films are structured they need an antagonist, for several reasons. One is the absence of Smaug, which would have been the case even if they'd kept it to two films. In the book there's realistically no antagonist present until the latter stages (at which point there's a selection of them). They did need an antagonist to drive the narrative in the first film, and Azog hunting Thorin is a choice that makes perfect sense, to me.

As for Radagast, two related points come to mind: first, that he adds exactly what people have been asking for, a more light-hearted tone: and second, he is actually quite Tolkienesque. What!?! I hear you cry. That bumbling, semi-autistic eccentric, muttering to himself and riding around on a bunny-powered sled? Yup. Oh, I'll grant you he'd be out of place in, say, The Silmarillion, though maybe not as badly as some people seem to think: but he'd fit right in to any of Tolkien's children's tales, from Farmer Giles of Ham to Roverrandom and yes, even The Hobbit. In some ways he's the most Hobbit-esque touch in the whole thing.

Besides, I like Sylvester McCoy and he does a good job. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you took Azog out of the mix, I think it still could work, eliminate the silly warg scenes early in the movie, have the Dwarves 1st encounter the goblins in the mountains, have them kill the goblin chief (call him Azog), then have Azog' son (call him Bolg) be the antagonist from there on out. The only issue being it would get rid of tying the dwarves current actions to moria storyline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a Tolkien purists perspective, I'm even more baffled by the objections to Azog as having "no reason for existence". Azog exists because Tolkien wrote about him! Jackson's not making this stuff up; this is all Tolkien.

yes, tolkien wrote about azog, but certainly not THIS azog we see in the movie.

THIS azog is a pure figment of jackson's imagination.

thorin cuts off his hand and now he wants revenge? that could have been written by a third-grader and it cheapens the whole story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does an adherence to basic movie making principles make someone pathetic?

What makes PJ pathetic to me is that he uses the same "tricks" in all of his movies be it Dead Alive, the Frighteners, the Tolkien movies, or King Kong. Things that are just added because the director thinks they are cool (he generally says this on commentaries) but are generally just juvenile and stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd wager to say that Azog exists in the movies solely for your later reason, ie someone for Thorin to kill before dying. Bolg could have been the antagonist for all three movies (as it makes sense even from a book perspective) but then Thorin wouldn't have a specific person to kill after being mortally wounded which the pathetic PJ needs. Bolg will be in the movie but sadly going by the size of the actor cast, he is going to be a big big orc that exists solely to get killed by Beorn.

Bolg or Azog as the antagonist is irrelevant. They both would serve the same purpose in the exact same way. I'm not sure what you think the difference here would be.

He exists to provide an antagonist to the first half of the movie, something which the book completely lacks, on top of tying the conflict at the end of the movie to shit that happens before 10 minutes before the end of the movie.

yes, tolkien wrote about azog, but certainly not THIS azog we see in the movie.

THIS azog is a pure figment of jackson's imagination.

thorin cuts off his hand and now he wants revenge? that could have been written by a third-grader and it cheapens the whole story.

How does it cheapen the whole story? You haven't explained what is actually wrong with the character or it's motivation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Radagast, two related points come to mind: first, that he adds exactly what people have been asking for, a more light-hearted tone: and second, he is actually quite Tolkienesque. What!?! I hear you cry. That bumbling, semi-autistic eccentric, muttering to himself and riding around on a bunny-powered sled? Yup. Oh, I'll grant you he'd be out of place in, say, The Silmarillion, though maybe not as badly as some people seem to think: but he'd fit right in to any of Tolkien's children's tales, from Farmer Giles of Ham to Roverrandom and yes, even The Hobbit. In some ways he's the most Hobbit-esque touch in the whole thing.

Besides, I like Sylvester McCoy and he does a good job. :)

I don't think he fits in at all in The Hobbit. Not in the book, where the closest thing you would get is the Trolls, who aren't near that slap-stick silly. And certainly not in the movie, which borrows heavily from the tone of the LOTR movies, where he feels even more out of place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing I have against Azog is the way he looks, not a fan too be honest..I would much have preferred if he looked something like Gothmog in ROTK, more like a normal Goblin/Orc just more formidable. Other then that though I can understand why he plays a more prominent role here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Thorin has an antagonist, does that make him the protagonist? Should the title be The Dwarf?

He's one of the protagonists, certainly.

The only thing I have against Azog is the way he looks, not a fan too be honest..I would much have preferred if he looked something like Gothmog in ROTK, more like a normal Goblin/Orc just more formidable. Other then that though I can understand why he plays a more prominent role here.

/nod

I think he's nicely intimidating, but I'd rather he'd been not-CGI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have my criticisms of the film, as will already be apparent: but two that I don't subscribe to are the inclusion of Azog as an antagonist, and Radagast.

As already noted, the way the films are structured they need an antagonist, for several reasons. One is the absence of Smaug, which would have been the case even if they'd kept it to two films. In the book there's realistically no antagonist present until the latter stages (at which point there's a selection of them). They did need an antagonist to drive the narrative in the first film, and Azog hunting Thorin is a choice that makes perfect sense, to me.

As for Radagast, two related points come to mind: first, that he adds exactly what people have been asking for, a more light-hearted tone: and second, he is actually quite Tolkienesque. What!?! I hear you cry. That bumbling, semi-autistic eccentric, muttering to himself and riding around on a bunny-powered sled? Yup. Oh, I'll grant you he'd be out of place in, say, The Silmarillion, though maybe not as badly as some people seem to think: but he'd fit right in to any of Tolkien's children's tales, from Farmer Giles of Ham to Roverrandom and yes, even The Hobbit. In some ways he's the most Hobbit-esque touch in the whole thing.

Besides, I like Sylvester McCoy and he does a good job. :)

Here is ,my issue.

I read a book called The Hobbit, and it had a wonderful protagonist named Smaug. It is a rather short book with characters so rich and deep that they have lasted for generations. Why does this wonderful book that could have been translated with loving care easily into a single three hour movie need three times that length for its modern narrative? Why couldn't we just get the book?

Having said that, I am completely on board with your analysis. If you are going to stretch this thing out on the flimsiest of threads, the first movie did absolutely require Azog, and Radagast was a very Tokienesgue character, he just didn't match the Radagast that Tolkien describes in the books.

I enjoyed the movie, and I will go see the other two, but there is a large part of me that laments the fact that I will probably never see a true adaptation of the book in my lifetime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does it cheapen the whole story? You haven't explained what is actually wrong with the character or it's motivation.

there is actually no point in azog being there in the first place.

"the hobbit" (the book) is a grand adventure that is made up of a series of smaller adventures that all have their own antagonist(s) - trolls, goblins, spiders etc.

giving us azog running after thorin all over the wilderness is as good as telling us "we need to fit this book you love into what we think you expect from a movie".

many of us have read and loved hobbit as it is and don't need peter jackson to make up parts to "make it better" or "more suitable for big screen".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there is actually no point in azog being there in the first place.

"the hobbit" (the book) is a grand adventure that is made up of a series of smaller adventures that all have their own antagonist(s) - trolls, goblins, spiders etc.

giving us azog running after thorin all over the wilderness is as good as telling us "we need to fit this book you love into what we think you expect from a movie".

many of us have read and loved hobbit as it is and don't need peter jackson to make up parts to "make it better" or "more suitable for big screen".

So you are mad he did an adaptation of the book?

Yeah, I don't know what to tell you. It's a movie, not a book. It's gonna be adapted, by necessity. Further, it's a movie connected to another set of movies, and so has to bridge the tonal shift between the two source works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you are mad he did an adaptation of the book?

Yeah, I don't know what to tell you. It's a movie, not a book. It's gonna be adapted, by necessity. Further, it's a movie connected to another set of movies, and so has to bridge the tonal shift between the two source works.

i'm not mad he adapted the book - that is a necessity and i'm fully aware of that.

i'm not even mad he took it upon himself to change the story to fill 3 movies, or that he took a huge crap on some parts of both LotR and the hobbit.

i just don't like it and don't think that he's made a great adaptation of those books, though he did make great movies in his first trilogy. the hobbit was too drawn out so i don't even consider it a great movie, except when it comes to visual effects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most of the complaints people (me included) have about this movie stem from the fact that PJ tried to treat The Hobbit as a prequel to LOTR, which it is not.

Well that and uninspired directing :P

The book certainly isn't. The movie kinda has to be because, well, it IS a prequel series to the LOTR series.

i'm not mad he adapted the book - that is a necessity and i'm fully aware of that.

i'm not even mad he took it upon himself to change the story to fill 3 movies, or that he took a huge crap on some parts of both LotR and the hobbit.

i just don't like it and don't think that he's made a great adaptation of those books, though he did make great movies in his first trilogy. the hobbit was too drawn out so i don't even consider it a great movie, except when it comes to visual effects.

Well, sure, you may not like it. But those changes have good reasons behind them (or most of them do).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is ,my issue.

I read a book called The Hobbit, and it had a wonderful protagonist named Smaug.

That's a revisionist take I'd love to read someday. :P

Having said that, I am completely on board with your analysis. If you are going to stretch this thing out on the flimsiest of threads, the first movie did absolutely require Azog, and Radagast was a very Tokienesgue character, he just didn't match the Radagast that Tolkien describes in the books.

Two points: first, it's being somewhat generous to say Tolkien 'describes' Radagast in the books. 'Mentions' is more like it. We get very few actual details about Radagast's character, which leads to my second point: so far as I recall, nothing in the film contradicts or clashes with what little we know of Radagast from Tolkien's own pen.

I enjoyed the movie, and I will go see the other two, but there is a large part of me that laments the fact that I will probably never see a true adaptation of the book in my lifetime.

You can hear one, at least - the '68 radio adaptation is pretty faithful, I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not about filming the books people read or even the books people thought they read. It's about adapting those books into a movie series. And that requires, by necessity, some changes.

PJ chose to take the LOTR story and highlight the action-adventure elements and bring them centre stage in order to create an entertaining adaptation. And he succeeds for the most part. It's not completely true to the content or tone of the original work, but it's true to many parts of tat tone and content. But hey, that's adaptation for you. PJ wanted first and foremost to make an entertaining film, which is what you want from an adaptation.

The problem is then that approaching The Hobbit, you get a book that is completely tonally different from LOTR. But the movie must, by necessity be tonally consistent with the LOTR movies. So you have to adapt the material a little more vigorously to achieve the effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read a book called The Hobbit, and it had a wonderful protagonist named Smaug.

In a hole in the ground there lived a dragon. Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: it was a dwarven treasure chamber, and that means gold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...