The Hobbit

[Bromptonboy]

[spoiler]I see what you are saying about supplying tension, but there was plenty of that in the original story.  All of Thorin's company had their doubts about Bilbo, and only started to feel positive towards him when he managed to escape the Goblin mountain on his own.  It wasn't until Mirkwood that Bilbo really started to come into his own, and prove his worth to the Dwarves.  Bilbo continually thinking longingly of his fire, and breakfast in his own hole - is never close to him deserting.  His sense of duty is strong enough that he considers going back into the Goblin mountain to find the dwarves (in the book).[/spoiler]  I am going to see all three movies - I just can't help but grumble a bit.

[Bryancd]

How about this explanation for Azog, I thought this was well thought out...

[spoiler]Q: Why Did Peter Jackson Change Azog from the Book?

ANSWER: It's not my place to speak for Peter Jackson as I have no direct knowledge behind his decisions but it makes sense to me that he would do this. As a devoted Tolkien fan and reader I have no personal objections to the change. In the book Azog is little more than just a name. He was anecdotally slain by Thorin's cousin Dain Ironfoot. The only full account of the event is Tolkien's description of the Battle of Azanulbizar in Appendix A to The Lord of the Rings. In the published book, The Hobbit, the Goblins are led by Azog's son Bolg of the North. It does appear, from credits listed IMDB for "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" and "The Hobbit: There and Back Again" that Bolg will appear in one or both of the next two movies in Peter's "Hobbit" trilogy.

So I think Peter expanded Azog's role for several reasons. First, Azog becomes a personal adversary for Thorin. Of course, Smaug is a personal adversary for the Heir of Thror but, let's face it, Thorin is not going to kill Smaug. I suspect that Thorin will kill Azog either in the second movie or the third.

In my opinion the role of Thorin was expanded in order to give the audience a heroic figure to root for. Thorin is more sympathetic in Peter Jackson's "Hobbit" than in J.R.R. Tolkien's book. Anyone familiar with the story knows how Thorin's part plays out and I suspect that his final scene in the movies will be emotionally wrenching. Sean Bean may have to share "best death scene" with Richard Armitage — or maybe Richard will take that glory from him.

Azog also creates a real sense of danger for the journey long before the Dwarves arrive in the Misty Mountains. Although the Lone-lands seem desolate in the book they should have been more dangerous than The Hobbit made them out to be, given the retroactive history that Tolkien devised for them in The Lord of the Rings.

Furthermore, it seems to me that Peter is using Azog's intrusion into Eriador to enhance the significance of the presence of the three trolls who capture the Dwarves. Whereas in The Hobbit the trolls are just a random encounter on the road, in the "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" Gandalf uses the presence of the trolls and the orcs west of the mountains to argue that some great evil has arisen (of course, Radagast's visit to Dol Guldur helps reinforce that argument).

So I think Peter is trying to present a more coherent story about Sauron being the source of the evils that plague Thorin and Company on their quest. Tolkien hints in his retroactive history this may be the case so Peter is just capitalizing on the hints and using them to create a more focused threat to Middle-earth, thus connecting the "Hobbit" trilogy more firmly to the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy.

It's not necessarily a brilliant bit of rearrangement of the materials but it is, to me, a logical one and so far I think it works well enough. I think the story flows better when all these perils share connections with each other rather than if they are just apparently random events that are quickly tied up in Bolg's sudden attack on Erebor as in the story. Peter Jackson's audience is larger and somewhat more sophisticated in tastes and expectations than Tolkien's young sons were when he first composed the tale — and even J.R.R. Tolkien himself wanted very much to rewrite The Hobbit so as to be more mature, less condescending, and darker than the original children's book. Although he might not have approved of Peter's changes, I think he would have understood them.
[spoiler]

[ChrisMC]

That's pretty well thought out, I'm pretty sure Azog will be around 'til the end. Plus he's a damn cool looking character.

The fact of the matter is that Tolkien DID re-write the "Riddles in the Dark" chapter to have the Gollum character and the ring line up a bit more with LOTR which was much darker in tone.

We think of the LOTR movies as awesome now, but I was on a Tolkien BBS back then and that hate that was spewed forth on the changes to the movies was crazy. There is just so much Tolkien in these movies that I can't bring myself to gripe about getting extra bits or slowing the pace a bit or minor changes to characters from the books for dramatic effect.

[Bromptonboy]

Did anyone else think Azog looked like..
[spoiler]one of the 'Engineers' from Prometheus..  ;)[/spoiler]

[Bryancd]

Did anyone else think Azog looked like..
[spoiler]one of the 'Engineers' from Prometheus..  ;)[/spoiler]

Oh no....they are on Middle Earth planning the destruction of the dwarves! Bring on the xenomorph! :)

[Meds]

Well booked my ticket ( going on my own) for Jan 20 the as that's when my little art house cinema will be showing it. :)

[Bromptonboy]

Compelling angle on the movie - I don't agree with all of the article but with some of it:

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/12/peter-jacksons-violent-betrayal-of-tolkien/266294/#

[Bryancd]

I'll counter that with this one. :)

http://io9.com/5968455/the-hobbit-is-a-lot-better-once-you-realize-its-a-war-movie

[ChrisMC]

If you would have told me this movie would be divisive a month ago, I would have been shocked!

[Bryancd]

I think the review I posted touches on that. One word: Anticipation. I can understand why PJ was so reluctant to revisit Middle Earth beyond an Executive Producing role. How do you follow up what is, IMO, the greatest trilogy film of all time? yes, I think it even eclipses the SW OT as far as EPIC, not in terms of my personal sentimentality. The only workable material left was The Hobbit. If you are going to go and do this, you may as well do it so it never has t be done again. Pull in all the ancillary material and make The Hobbit movie's into "The Rest of The Best of Tolkien" and be DONE. So it's like the SW OT vs. the PT, old school fans get bent out of shape, new fans have a new experience, but at the end of the day, the whole story is all there for us to see on screen and take what enjoyment from it that we will.

[Rico]

I'm a bit in the middle on all this.  I can see doing some of the changes and adding a little more material.  However, I think he went overboard.  And I think after I'm done seeing all three movies based on this one small book I'm probably going to feel that even more.  I did enjoy this first part but again, I think it went a bit too far in changing the tone and feel of the story.

[Bromptonboy]

If you would have told me this movie would be divisive a month ago, I would have been shocked!

:)  I think I am not being clear - yes I am disappointed at a certain level - since the story is dear to me and in my opinion doesn't need the flash added - but I did enjoy it.  Most likely I will see the film again in 2D - and I will see the other 2.  In one of my spoiler tags above, I mentioned one thing that really sparked my mild grousing:  [spoiler]Bilbo trying to desert the dwarves in the mountain pass[/spoiler]
To me it is like finding a hair in a meal that - up until that moment - I was savoring.
I had a similar experience watching LOTR - which I loved in spite of the modifications save for 2 changes - which I will not mention in this thread but will in another if any one is interested in hearing this old curmudgeon.  :)  And get of my yard you kids!!

[Jobydrone]

I would have been totally fine with one 210 minute movie of the Hobbit.  No Silmarillion, no Unfinished Tales, no Appendixes.  Just the Hobbit, one of my favorite books of all time.  That's far from what this movie is, but what we got, I enjoyed very much.  I would probably have preferred the former, but I am happy with another trilogy.  It smacks of studio greed, but after seeing what they did with Unexpected Journey, I have total faith the next two films will be just as great as the first.

[QuadShot]

It always cracks me up when people make statements like..."Studio greed..." or "All they care about is making money" or (my personal favorite) "He's purposefully misdirecting us."  Dudes...get a flipping grip! What in the WORLD do you think movies are? They are a product of a company. PERIOD. The goal of making a movie is to MAKE MONEY. Yes, EVERYTHING a studio does is based on the bottom line. MAKE....MONEY....other wise why flipping bother, right? I mean, would you expect to go to work every day and NOT get paid? How about if your co-workers or boss complained "oh, he's just greedy. He comes HERE and wants money!" Oh, and yes, I know it's another thread, but you know what? JJ Abrams has EVERY right to "misdirect" you. It's HIS movie. HE made it and invested in it. So WHAT if he's not telling YOU who the bad guy is? And yes, I know what you're all going to say "It's fun to speculate and debate"...but saying things like studio greed, or misdirection, or lying...that's neither speculating on the movie or debating it.

[Bryancd]

But...but... I thought it was ART! :) The greed thing is a silly complaint. The lying and misdirection is their perogative which I don't deny them but as their target audience, I also reserve the right to tell them to bite me. :)