Azog the Idiot!
- Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46519
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
Azog the Idiot!
How's that for a provocative thread title. 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. I really think this is the prime product of what SA likes to call the Screenwriting 101 mentality of the scriptwriters. Conventional wisdom says that you have to have a main, physical adversary in a film, so they invented this new story for Azog to be that main adversary in AUJ. But it comes across as oh so contrived, to me at least. I understand that they want to reserve Bolg for later (probably TABA, I hope and assume, Smaug himself being the main baddie in DOS). But I really think they could have gotten away without a main baddie in this film and it would not have suffered at all. I know some people like Azog's look (I don't particularly, but I don't hate it), but I just think the whole thing comes across as convoluted, and unnecessarily contradicts the books.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
- Dave_LF
- Wrong within normal parameters
- Posts: 6850
- Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 10:59 am
- Location: The other side of Michigan
What gets me though is that it clearly wasn't a late decision to have the 2 warg attacks play out the way they did; they must have just digitally replaced some other orc with Azog (I'm sure an individual line or shot here and there was a pickup). Indications seem to be that Yazneg (the one who got thrown to the wolves) was originally meant to have led the attack at the end (the Lego set of that scene has a Yazneg figure on a white warg). So what was supposed to happen to him after that? Who was the main villain of film 1 in the 2 film script?
- Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46519
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
- Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
It must have existed in some form, if the studio greenlighted two films.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
I've been posting about this on TORn...
I reckon, judging by the casting history that we know, Conan Stevens was originally going to be a character called Azog. I believe that this is what is now called "Bolg", and was originally meant to be a zombie Azog "resurrected" by Sauron in Dol Guldur. When the change to 3 films occurred PJ/Boyens decided that they needed another Azog, and firstly turned to John Rawls "Yazneg" but that design was too generic and they wants something completely different and identifiable for Azog...thus they finally turned to Manu Bennett to do the mo-cap for a CGI Pale Orc.
With regards to the necessity of Azog's vendetta storyline in AUJ to build him up for the Bo5A, there is none:
The whole reason the Goblins turn up at the Bo5A is for revenge over the Great Goblin's death, and they join forces with Bolg's Gundabad Orcs on route, since the news had reached Bolg of Thorin's role in the GG's death and that kindled his hatred of the Dwarves of Durin's line even further. The book makes perfect sense. By all means have a flashback to Moria, and Azog's death, but tie it to Bolg, and leave him in Gundabad until after the GG's death. No need for warg chases across Eriador...
I reckon, judging by the casting history that we know, Conan Stevens was originally going to be a character called Azog. I believe that this is what is now called "Bolg", and was originally meant to be a zombie Azog "resurrected" by Sauron in Dol Guldur. When the change to 3 films occurred PJ/Boyens decided that they needed another Azog, and firstly turned to John Rawls "Yazneg" but that design was too generic and they wants something completely different and identifiable for Azog...thus they finally turned to Manu Bennett to do the mo-cap for a CGI Pale Orc.
With regards to the necessity of Azog's vendetta storyline in AUJ to build him up for the Bo5A, there is none:
The whole reason the Goblins turn up at the Bo5A is for revenge over the Great Goblin's death, and they join forces with Bolg's Gundabad Orcs on route, since the news had reached Bolg of Thorin's role in the GG's death and that kindled his hatred of the Dwarves of Durin's line even further. The book makes perfect sense. By all means have a flashback to Moria, and Azog's death, but tie it to Bolg, and leave him in Gundabad until after the GG's death. No need for warg chases across Eriador...
There is magic in long-distance friendships. They let you relate to other human beings in a way that goes beyond being physically together and is often more profound.
~Diana Cortes
~Diana Cortes
- Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46519
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
I know I'd speculated -- more like asserted, such is my way at times -- that they wanted to make 3 films all along and the July announcement was just a ruse. But now I think they actually made such a late decision because they realized a longer first film of a 2 film Hobbit wasn't going to be ready in time for December 2012. What that might have meant for Azog or who would have been the main protagonist in film 1 (assuming it wasn't him originally) is of course anyone's guess. ETA: (I rather think Dave's on the right trail here.)Voronwë the Faithful wrote:If there ever really was a 2 film script.
I think it would have been enough to play up the "off to slay a dragon" theme for the whole of film one (of a 2 film Hobbit) having Smaug be the baddie by proxy... didn't the Harry Potter peoples pull off a similar feat with Voldemort in HP 7 Part I?Dave wrote:What gets me though is that it clearly wasn't a late decision to have the 2 warg attacks play out the way they did; they must have just digitally replaced some other orc with Azog (I'm sure an individual line or shot here and there was a pickup). Indications seem to be that Yazneg (the one who got thrown to the wolves) was originally meant to have led the attack at the end (the Lego set of that scene has a Yazneg figure on a white warg). So what was supposed to happen to him after that? Who was the main villain of film 1 in the 2 film script?
I would be curious to see a PJ "home movie" adaptation of Tolkien without the studio or audience "demands". I wonder how different the movies would be and how the aforementioned demands would affect his vision for bringing Tolkien to the screen.
I didn't hate the fact that Azog was a character in the movie, but I was disappointed that he was the main bad dude throughout the movie, again and again and he still lived to see another movie. It was just too much. Like an overly long battle scene.
The movie would have survived quite well without him imo, but in any case he should be an ex character at this point.
I didn't hate the fact that Azog was a character in the movie, but I was disappointed that he was the main bad dude throughout the movie, again and again and he still lived to see another movie. It was just too much. Like an overly long battle scene.
The movie would have survived quite well without him imo, but in any case he should be an ex character at this point.
-
- Posts: 167
- Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 3:45 am
- Location: Boston, USA
- Contact:
Agreed. When Azog reappears in the last scene... I think I groaned aloud. Not him, not again.Holbytla wrote:I would be curious to see a PJ "home movie" adaptation of Tolkien without the studio or audience "demands". I wonder how different the movies would be and how the aforementioned demands would affect his vision for bringing Tolkien to the screen.
I didn't hate the fact that Azog was a character in the movie, but I was disappointed that he was the main bad dude throughout the movie, again and again and he still lived to see another movie. It was just too much. Like an overly long battle scene.
'You just said "your getting shorter": you've obviously been drinking too much ent-draught and not enough Prim's.' - Jude
- ArathornJax
- Aldrig nogen sinde Kvitte
- Posts: 398
- Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2008 4:19 pm
- Location: Northern Utah Misty Mountains
Just saw the movie today for the first time. I posted my review on it and the one thing I hate is that PJ seems to feel that in The Hobbit, The Unexpected Journey, there has to be a chase like the Nazgûl had in the Fellowship. Azog was built up far too much and for me it just distracts from the movie and wasn't needed.
As I stated in my review, my hope is that as Beorn goes out and verifies their story, he finds Azog while in Bear form and kills the White Warg (any one put a connection here with the White Whale from a famous literary novel?) and Azog. Then Beorn can put Azog's head on a stake and tack up the skin of the White Warg so that story line can end and be connected to what happen in the book. I can wish, but I doubt it will happen that way.
As I stated in my review, my hope is that as Beorn goes out and verifies their story, he finds Azog while in Bear form and kills the White Warg (any one put a connection here with the White Whale from a famous literary novel?) and Azog. Then Beorn can put Azog's head on a stake and tack up the skin of the White Warg so that story line can end and be connected to what happen in the book. I can wish, but I doubt it will happen that way.
1. " . . . (we are ) too engrossed in thinking of everything as a preparation or training or making one fit -- for what? At any minute it is what we are and are doing, not what we plan to be and do that counts."
J.R.R. Tolkien in his 6 October 1940 letter to his son Michael Tolkien.
2. We have many ways using technology to be in touch, yet the larger question is are we really connected or are we simply more in touch? There is a difference.
J.R.R. Tolkien in his 6 October 1940 letter to his son Michael Tolkien.
2. We have many ways using technology to be in touch, yet the larger question is are we really connected or are we simply more in touch? There is a difference.
- Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46519
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
I think that would be great, AJ. Really, there is no more need for Azog (as if there ever was one). I just saw it for the second time, and that was really the only thing that I actively disliked.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
I just replied to this in the review thread (should have come here first!) and totally agree with AJ's idea. In fact, I would love to have seen this happen in AUJ, as the Eagles are carrying the Company off - it would serve to set up Beorn without revealing too much, and would have finished off this stupid storyline in the first film instead of prolonging the agony!
There is magic in long-distance friendships. They let you relate to other human beings in a way that goes beyond being physically together and is often more profound.
~Diana Cortes
~Diana Cortes
- Dave_LF
- Wrong within normal parameters
- Posts: 6850
- Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 10:59 am
- Location: The other side of Michigan
Azog and his beef with "the line of Durin" have been built up too much for him to be casually offed by a random character, IMO. They're going to need to think of some explanation for how the company loses him in Mirkwood, though (I'm assuming he won't continue to hunt them all the way through the forest).
Personally, I liked Azog as a villain and found him suitably terrifying--much more so than any of the LotR orcs. The fact that he was CGI only adds to the effect, since the uncanny chasm works in your favor with this sort of character. I kind of wish they had just called him Bolg and had him be the main orc antagonist right up until the end. But maybe they are going to have two of them--Azog for the dwarves, and Bolg for the White Council.
Personally, I liked Azog as a villain and found him suitably terrifying--much more so than any of the LotR orcs. The fact that he was CGI only adds to the effect, since the uncanny chasm works in your favor with this sort of character. I kind of wish they had just called him Bolg and had him be the main orc antagonist right up until the end. But maybe they are going to have two of them--Azog for the dwarves, and Bolg for the White Council.
That would have been my preferred option, too, with the zombie-Orc they are calling "Bolg" renamed to something else... in fact, I would have stuck with the Nazgûl or even some other kind of "Wights" being the antagonists alongside The Necromancer in Dol Guldur.Dave_LF wrote:I kind of wish they had just called him Bolg and had him be the main orc antagonist right up until the end.
There is magic in long-distance friendships. They let you relate to other human beings in a way that goes beyond being physically together and is often more profound.
~Diana Cortes
~Diana Cortes
I agree that the only time we should see Azog in TDoS is when his head is on Beorn's spike. Sadly, I highly doubt that PJ would allow anyone but Thorin kill Azog.
I do fear that we are to see the dwarves fighting by the side of the bear-Beorn.
Actually... That could be kinda awesome.
I do fear that we are to see the dwarves fighting by the side of the bear-Beorn.
Actually... That could be kinda awesome.
If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
- axordil
- Pleasantly Twisted
- Posts: 8999
- Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:35 pm
- Location: Black Creek Bottoms
- Contact:
You can get away with that when you have six movies' worth of momentum and build up. They needed a more proximate bad guy for the opening film.I think it would have been enough to play up the "off to slay a dragon" theme for the whole of film one (of a 2 film Hobbit) having Smaug be the baddie by proxy... didn't the Harry Potter peoples pull off a similar feat with Voldemort in HP 7 Part I?
The sole thing that bugs me is that Azog didn't hightail it when he saw the eagles ripping through his forces. Even his desire for revenge shouldn't overcome his natural cravenness/survival instinct.
I do find the switch in character names/depictions to be...puzzling? I find myself wondering who made that call and when. It was obviously in the last six months of production, otherwise the promo material with the wrong names wouldn't have leaked out in, what was it, early Summer?
And it's not like Voldemort is the only bad guy - Harry Potter generally has one or two lesser villains per book, and they usually play a role in the climax (haven't seen the movies though).
With that said, I feel like even Lurtz was a more interesting villain than Azog. Maybe because he didn't overstay his welcome.
I think part of the reason they used Azog was to draw out parts of Thorin's character. This sort of works, but he's still not a compelling character at all.
With that said, I feel like even Lurtz was a more interesting villain than Azog. Maybe because he didn't overstay his welcome.
I think part of the reason they used Azog was to draw out parts of Thorin's character. This sort of works, but he's still not a compelling character at all.
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.
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.
If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!