Azog the Idiot!

[eborr]

I think namesless orcs and wolves attacking would have worked just as well, this is another example of PJ at his worst - when he is "improving" the story.

The fact that he and his fellow writers are slaves to low-brow screen-writing practice does them no favours what so ever.

[kzer_za]

So in honor of our favorite albino villain, I threw this together with my super-amateurish skills:

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Awesome!

[Alatar]

I don't really get this whole "Azog the Idiot" thing?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

As I explained in the opening post of this thread, it is a tongue in cheek reference to my belief (apparently also held by a few other people) that the inclusion of Azog as the main baddie of the AUJ was an unnecessary bowing to what our old friend Shelob'sAppetite (miss him) called "Screenwriting 101".

[Frelga]

Shouldn't it be PJ the Idiot in that case? Azog as a character is pretty clever, as movie villains go: tracking down the dwarfs, using mountain goblins, and so on.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I do say in the first post "It's misleading, too, because I don't really want to talk so much about Azog's intellectual capacity, or lack there in, but rather the (apparently late) decision to make him the main adversary in the first film."

[kzer_za]

"Azog the Idiot" sounds funnier, especially as a parody of "Azog the Defiler." And since he's a fictional character, I don't have to feel bad calling him names or making a stupid picture with him.

[Passdagas the Brown]

I already found myself in an unfamiliar position of defending the changes PJ made to the story. This one I am not wholly thrilled with, but on balance, I did not hate Azog nearly as much as I expected, and I think this is the price we are paying for having the story stretched over three movies.

In the book, much of the challenge to Bilbo comes from the simple routine of traveling. They get cold and wet, they lose supplies, they are tired and uncomfortable. Meet the trolls, rinse, repeat, get to Rivendell, rinse, repeat, get captured by goblins - extended action up till eagles - rinse, repeat, Beorn, rinse, repeat, Mirkwood, rinse, repeat, Wood Elves, and then we are cooking with gas. Do we really want to watch that?

Maybe a brilliant filmmaker could make this fascinating, I don't know. But it's easy to see why PJ felt that a more tangible menace was called for.

I don't have a problem with the design of Azog, as many others do. He has a great silhouette and an almost "fallen angel" aesthetic which I find visually compelling, and strikingly Tolkienian. The Azanulbizar backstory was breathtaking, and Azog is part of that.

What I do have a major issue with is the shoehorning of an orcish "dwarf hunt" into the story, and the awfully tensionless way in which it was done.

And while I can certainly understand why PJ did what he did, I do believe a better filmmaker could have done wonders with the following:

They get cold and wet, they lose supplies, they are tired and uncomfortable. Meet the trolls, rinse, repeat, get to Rivendell, rinse, repeat, get captured by goblins - extended action up till eagles - rinse, repeat, Beorn, rinse, repeat, Mirkwood, rinse, repeat, Wood Elves, and then we are cooking with gas.

Let's just take the "they get cold and wet, they lose supplies, they are tired and uncomfortable...Meet the trolls" for example.

Imagine a scene in the early evening. It's damp. The company is not in the highest of spirits, but they are setting up camp and generally getting along okay. Then, as the sun lowers in the sky, some of the ponies start to get nervous and fidgety. Some of the dwarves attempt to soothe them, to no avail. One of the dwarves is then called in: an expert on calming pack animals. He takes out a recorder, and plays a hauntingly beautiful tune. The rest of the dwarven company (or just a few) sing a deep, earthy and mysterious song. A gentle breeze crosses the moor, as the singing continues. The ponies gradually calm down. One of them goes to sleep. Relief, though tension over what's causing the nervousness.

Bilbo uneasily tries to sleep, wet and frightened. Finally, sleep. A short, sweet dream of Bag End unfolds. Bilbo pours himself a cup of tea, and raises it to his mouth.

Cut to Bilbo waking up in the early morning, startled at a sudden sound. All the pack ponies are gone, and one has just bolted. Bilbo calls out to the dwarves, and Fili and Kili, and a smattering of slower dwarves, attempt to chase down the pony.

Splash, it launches itself into a swollen river. A frenetic and dangerous chase into the water ensues. Fili and Kili nearly drown, and a few of the other dwarves nearly kill themselves going after them. Bilbo looks on - useless. The pack pony is drowned.

Cut to a scene of despair. Gandalf is gone, the food is gone. It's raining. Some angry and frustrated dialogue unfolds, while Bilbo shows no sign of being of any use - further aggravating the matter by complaining about this new turn of events.

A light appears off in the distance, deep in the wood. Could it be men and hospitality, or is it the thing that drove the ponies wild?

Time for Bilbo to prove his worth.

These kinds of real tensions, and real dilemmas - things that happen on dangerous roads through dangerous country - could have been dramatized throughout the films. And done while building the character of Bilbo, and the dwarves, rather than turning them into pinballs in a game, with virtually no coherent character development.

Compare the above to:

CGI orcs attack on CGI wolves on the orders of super villain orc! Dwarves run! CGI Radagast and his CGI bunnies run! CGI orcs run!

No, I don't buy it. A good filmmaker could have done wonders with this story, without resorting to thinly realized and cliched insertions, like the orcs on the hunt.

Peter Jackson is, IMO, a fundamentally lazy storyteller and a mediocre filmmaker, at best. This film could have been so much better.

- Passdagas the Brown

[Elentári]

I don't have a problem with the design of Azog, as many others do. He has a great silhouette and an almost "fallen angel" aesthetic which I find visually compelling, and strikingly Tolkienian. The Azanulbizar backstory was breathtaking, and Azog is part of that.

What I do have a major issue with is the shoehorning of an orcish "dwarf hunt" into the story, and the awfully tensionless way in which it was done.

I agree the Azog needed to be striking, and easily identifiable - and likewise Bolg who should have gone on to carry the mantle of big boss Orc in these movies. It is interesting to see the footage of where the Yazneg character is being 'painted' over with the mo-capped Azog. Obviously Jackson original thought Azog should not be so distinctive when he was only going to feature at Azanulbizar. Was the change in design due to the decision to carry Azog's story throughout the trilogy, or down to input from the Studio to make the villain more identifiable?

CGI orcs attack on CGI wolves on the orders of super villain orc! Dwarves run! CGI Radagast and his CGI bunnies run! CGI orcs run!

No, I don't buy it. A good filmmaker could have done wonders with this story, without resorting to thinly realized and cliched insertions, like the orcs on the hunt.

Peter Jackson is, IMO, a fundamentally lazy storyteller and a mediocre filmmaker, at best. This film could have been so much better.

.

Quite so...whilst I understand that some scenes in the book "would not work on screen" there are ways to make changes that really are "in the spirit of Tolkien" - this mantra that the Jackson team keep spouting seems more often than not to be a cover for simply rewriting the story to make it fit pre-conceived notions of what maketh the blockbuster today's audience expect, so that all bases are covered, meanwhile they risk stripping the original story of what makes it original

KW on TORn makes this excellent observation on the subject of PJ making a more "adult version" of TH:

I don't entirely agree. Maybe the tone seems more adult but the substance seems like a step back. Unlike Bumblingidiot I first read the book as an adult and like yourself I didn't find it terribly compelling on the surface. But what more than redeems it for me is the way Tolkien avoids certain conventions in the way that BumblingIdiot describes. I think it is pretty important that the dwarves do not fight Smaug. Their tremendous lack of heroism and the mess it creates for others is one of the more sophisticated aspects of Tolkien's story. It bothers Jackson that they didn't get to fight Smaug? Isn't that sort of the point? Their shameless passing the buck is supposed to bother you. Yes they are hardy fighters but they are also indifferent and sometimes incompetent. Tolkien shows you both the strengths and the limitations of the values they bring in. They have their moments of greatness but they also have very humiliating moments as well like the barrel escape (which has now evidently been turned into a titillating fight scene). Not having a standard hero vs villain framework or the Sauron plotline to define them, the characters are more free to be the focus of the story and to act in slightly ambiguous ways. And Tolkien is inviting the reader to critically examine their behavior. That sort of conflict is much more adult to me than the corny villain they have inserted into the story or turning every scene into spectacular action sequences. The book is not perfect by any means but it seems like Jackson is throwing away the particular features that do raise it up rather than improving upon them.

I admit this is prejudging but it is hard not to see a trend emerging.

[kzer_za]

I don't think Peter Jackson is mediocre - mediocre directors don't make movies with the enduring cultural appeal of LotR or scenes as good Riddles in the Dark and Bilbo's pity. You can say he got lucky with good source material, but there are plenty of poor adaptations from good sources, even from competent directors. I'm confident that even if some of his decisions with DoS end up being truly awful, there will also be some excellent parts.

He is, however, quite inconsistent and certainly lacks judgment at times. His weaknesses seem to be showing themselves more with the Hobbit movies. Azog has more of a profound structural effect on the story than any change in LotR.

[Alatar]

I guess for me "Azog the Idiot" sounds like the character has made lots of stupid mistakes, like the way Legolas was referred to as "Captain Obvious". That makes sense, since Legolas kept explaining obvious plot points. Thats not true of Azog. However, I've seen a few posts now where people say "Oh, looks like we'll see more of the idiot". Since Azog hasn't really done anything idiotic, I personally feel the whole moniker doesn't work for me.

Sigh. I guess its just me.

[Passdagas the Brown]

I don't think Peter Jackson is mediocre - mediocre directors don't make movies with the enduring cultural appeal of LotR or scenes as good Riddles in the Dark and Bilbo's pity. You can say he got lucky with good source material, but there are plenty of poor adaptations from good sources, even from competent directors. I'm confident that even if some of his decisions with DoS end up being truly awful, there will also be some excellent parts.

He is, however, quite inconsistent and certainly lacks judgment at times. His weaknesses seem to be showing themselves more with the Hobbit movies. Azog has more of a profound structural effect on the story than any change in LotR.

I think the sheer scale and novelty of the Lord of the Rings films made it almost impossible for them not to endure, no matter the deficiencies of the director. I also think that the novelty, hardship, resource constraints associated with the filming of LOTR led PJ and company to come up with innovative and sometimes beautiful solutions. As with Lucas (though not as bad) PJ was infected with the resource curse. Too many resources - no limitations, no check on bad ideas, and no need to develop innovative artistic solutions - and you get pure PJ, which is more interested in adolescent theme parks (we have heard him speak lovingly about Universal Studios in a way he never speaks about Tolkien), rather than a compelling and rich film, full of lyricism and mythic depth.

I think PJ is less mediocre than paint-by-numbers directors like Ron Howard, but he is quite mediocre, I think, when he gets to do exactly what he wants.

I never much liked the LOTR films, and maintain that they are incredibly overrated. But the Hobbit AUJ, though shot through with some beautiful bits (I like most of what happens in the Shire) is, IMO, a failure.

Which leads me to a point I'd like to make in another thread: PJ is pretty good at "setting a story up" (FOTR: most everything before Bree is good; AUJ: most everything until the trolls is very good) but he is abysmal when it comes to unfolding it. But again, that's a subject for another time.

[Passdagas the Brown]

I think namesless orcs and wolves attacking would have worked just as well, this is another example of PJ at his worst - when he is "improving" the story.

The fact that he and his fellow writers are slaves to low-brow screen-writing practice does them no favours what so ever.

But why have orcs and elves attacking at all? What is wrong with the very real (heck, even realer) tensions and difficulties that befall the company in the book? Was there really a need for a colossally uninteresting (and truly dumb-looking) pursuit of the company by orcs between the trollshaws and Rivendell? Didn't we already see the Uruk Hai do that in Fellowship? I just don't understand why PJ and company aren't able to translate real problems, and real conflicts, to the screen. They just had to insert orcs and wargs, as if there was no other choice.

[Elentári]

The answer may be found in this article from the Sunday Times yesterday, about how Hollywood only wants to make hugely expensive films aimed at a global market....

It's big but is it clever?

Unfortunately, the article is only available online to subscribers, but this is what Michelle Johnston on TORN had to say about it:

There is an article in todays Sunday Times about studios making less films but more "event" cinema, the huge block buster. Event cinema is seen as a reaction to declining DVD sales. I noted the Hobbit Trilogy was excluded from this concern. However PJ know they have to use some of the qualities and movie language to position itself in front of the same audience. I do not need it and neither do you but I understand why he considers it necessary. WB ripped a large number of action scenes from the Hobbit and bombarded the American net works in the days leading up to release. Someone in Hollywood thinks that is how to sell seats. Are they right or wrong who knows but I do understand the environment in which PJ and Co are working. Curiously whereas as my taste in theatre and opera is quite safe I love to push my self with movies watching small intimate films like simple life or ten canoes or bleak pieces like The Road. As a Tolkien fan I suppose I stand outside of my personal vision of how the Hobbit and LOTR should be made and think that certainly with the LOTR its one of the least worse options (look at the truly dreadful adaptions of one day and war horse) that could have happened in my lifetime and whilst there are challenges Frodo, Denethor and the imagining of the eye there are also Gandalf The Grey, Théoden, Grima, Rohirrim and Khazâd dum.

[Alatar]

That reminds me of an old article by John Boorman that I have shared before. Granted, some may be of the opinion that the man who wrote the LotR screenplay with a Galadriel/ Frodo love scene is "not one to talk", but at least his movies were always original!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2003/sep ... resreviews

[Elentári]

Ah, it's the old "Scriptwriting 101" complaint...

To this end, script gurus like Robert McKee have brainwashed a generation of screenwriters into constructing scenarios along rigid lines: introduction of characters, statement of conflict, development of narrative, division into three acts, carefully placed climaxes, conclusion. This contributes to the sameness of movies, and feeds into audience expectations of comfortable patterns and makes them uneasy if a film diverges from that formula. Little by little movies become more and more similar to each other, with marginal variations.

Certainly, for me, the main difference between LotR and AUJ was that LotR managed to retain the uniqueness and idiosyncrasies of Tolkien's storyline for the most part, whereas AUJ (apart from the Bag end sequence - which the critics hated!) felt more like Tolkien shaped and revised to fit your average blockbuster. The former felt more like it truly tried to serve Tolkien's vision, whilst the latter felt more as though is was using Tolkien as the magic ingredient in a formulaic action movie.

So what is most likely to be the reason? Has Jackson "sold out" or is the studio leverage way too strong?

[axordil]

At this scale of movie making the studios and money people are too strong. "Selling out" means the movie gets made. Not selling out means it doesn't.

This is not a positive trend. But there is hope of a sort...because what was available only to the biggest studios and name directors twenty years ago is now on your iPad. That will also continue. In time perhaps there will be a convergence, and anyone will be able to make anything and distribute directly to everyone.

And then movies will be a very different thing indeed, for good or for ill.

[Passdagas the Brown]

The answer may be found in this article from the Sunday Times yesterday, about how Hollywood only wants to make hugely expensive films aimed at a global market....

It's big but is it clever?

Unfortunately, the article is only available online to subscribers, but this is what Michelle Johnston on TORN had to say about it:

There is an article in todays Sunday Times about studios making less films but more "event" cinema, the huge block buster. Event cinema is seen as a reaction to declining DVD sales. I noted the Hobbit Trilogy was excluded from this concern. However PJ know they have to use some of the qualities and movie language to position itself in front of the same audience. I do not need it and neither do you but I understand why he considers it necessary. WB ripped a large number of action scenes from the Hobbit and bombarded the American net works in the days leading up to release. Someone in Hollywood thinks that is how to sell seats. Are they right or wrong who knows but I do understand the environment in which PJ and Co are working. Curiously whereas as my taste in theatre and opera is quite safe I love to push my self with movies watching small intimate films like simple life or ten canoes or bleak pieces like The Road. As a Tolkien fan I suppose I stand outside of my personal vision of how the Hobbit and LOTR should be made and think that certainly with the LOTR its one of the least worse options (look at the truly dreadful adaptions of one day and war horse) that could have happened in my lifetime and whilst there are challenges Frodo, Denethor and the imagining of the eye there are also Gandalf The Grey, Théoden, Grima, Rohirrim and Khazâd dum.

Honestly, I don't think that is what's happening. I believe it is Peter Jackson's creative deficiencies, exacerbated by nearly unlimited resources, that have contributed to the more severe failures of AUJ.

I truly hope we will get a better second film, but if the trailer is any indication (and the pick-ups, which seem to be shot with a lot of green screen on top of green screen), it would probably be safest to keep expectations low. Below ground low. Deepest pits of Moria low.