Jump to content

The official JWFAN.net The Hobbit ending: book versus TBOFA speculation thread thingy (SPOILERS!!!)


Recommended Posts

Well yeah badass is probably the better word.

But he's more badass than Azog.

And I don't see what qualifies Azog as a good villain? He does some growling in Orc-ish, chases around the company for the first film, then stops chasing in the second film and attacks an old man from hiding, and that's what we've seen so far. The funny thing is, he's one of the central villains of this trilogy, and in that regard a poor one.

Lurtz was a smaller piece in a bigger work (like Gothmog in RotK, but even lesser in capacity). His character helps us learn more about Saruman's motives, the nature of the Uruk-hai, and he just looks real and totally badass. I was kind of hoping Azog would be like that. But he got drawn out through the trilogy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright BloodBoal, I'll play along...

And at the very least, the big battles in TTT and RotK tried to incorporate as many real elements as they could!

If you want real elements, just watch a damn documentary. Everything in a movie is fake, from the actors pretending to be a character they're not to the fake swords. Why does it matter if its CG or not?

That's a good point BB. You're right. These Hobbit films truly are awesome. Not like I want to BELIEVE what I'm seeing or anything (which is what LotR tried to do....lame). Kudos PJ, you really raised the bar!

It adds theatricality to the character, and even though the blade-licking may have been unceessary, it does the job far better than anything Azog has done. Azog looks phony, and like a diseased version of Captain Hook. Lurtz was truly terrifying (at least to me when I first watched it), and has no stupid back story or plot device to carry around the film.

So a villain with no backgound is better than a villain with a background? OK...

But Lurtz isn't a major villain in that regard. He's more like a setpiece. And technically he has a background (one of the first from the Uruk-hai breeding), but it is subtly handled.

Azog makes a mess in the first film, with needless exposition, long dire flashbacks, constant chasing (followed by hiding in DoS). I wish he was more like Lurtz in that regard and wasn't one of the major plot points this trilogy hinges on.

And yes, Lurtz does chasing (but it never seems as repetitive as Azog), but again, not the central villain of the film. Azog kind of takes on the same capacity Saruman had in FotR.


Though I would like all of them to die!

Why? Keeping Fili alive makes a better, more straigthforward story, instead of having some random secondary character showing up and taking the throne.

That's true. The character is awesome. I hope we see some makeout scenes between him and Tauriel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough, a lot of what I'm posting does sound like Hobbit hate, so it'd probably be better for me to stop.

To clarify, as I have many times before, I don't hate these films. Just not a fan of Azog, sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.