Why no Azog?

[Buttmunch]

Right after the death of Smaug is my guess.

That's my guess too, but that sure doesn't leave much for a third film. The breaking point for the first flim was the obvious breaking point IMO. But there is no good breaking point after that, which is probably why two films was the plan all along. I think the very late game change will probably end up hurting the series in the long run rather than do it good.

They're going to have to add a heck of a lot of stuff in the third film to fill it out. Because otherwise its 1 Big battle, exchanging of gifts, more Hobbit hugging, and then going home. And logically the Necromancer stuff will be in the second film. I can't imagine them leaving Gandalf out of 80% of the next film only to have 80% of the third film telling us where he was in the second film.

The whole Azog thing will pay off in the third film's battle, but I don't see why he needed to be included in the first film like he was. Bolg could have been that part and saving the return of Azog for the big surprise of the third film.

 

[FrodoEyes]

I doubt PJ will kill off his main trilogy villian in the middle movie

There's enough story in Beorn, Mirkwood, Thranduils halls, Laketown and the whole Dol Guldur plot to fill film 2. I reckon we'll even get Bilbo's first chat with Smaug, but everything else, i think, will be in film 3, otherwise as has been said that doesn't leave much more for film 3.

 

[FrodoEyes]

That's my guess too, but that sure doesn't leave much for a third film. The breaking point for the first flim was the obvious breaking point IMO. But there is no good breaking point after that, which is probably why two films was the plan all along. I think the very late game change will probably end up hurting the series in the long run rather than do it good.

But the original plan wasn't to end it after the eagles save them either, it was to be after the escape from Thranduils halls, and i bet even that has changed now as i said above. Just shows you can end it in a few different places, like a TV commercial

 

[The Josh]

There still plenty for the third film. If the second film ends with Smaugs death you still have the whole scene at the front gate of Erebor, battle, issues in lake town, trip home, back to Rivendell, and I'm sure some more foreshadowing to the events in LOTR. I have no problems with it being a trilogy as I think it allows more fleshing out of events.

I would have liked Bolg just for book reasons but I did like Azog.

 

[Buttmunch]

But the original plan wasn't to end it after the eagles save them either, it was to be after the escape from Thranduils halls, and i bet even that has changed now as i said above. Just shows you can end it in a few different places, like a TV commercial

Really? That isn't a great place to leave off IMO. The one they went with was perfect. And meeting Beorin in the beginning of the next film is the perfect way to reintroduce all of the Dwarfs and recap the story for he audience - Tolkien even did this. So that's why that cut off made sense.

I can't imagine the second film being called the Desolation of Smaug and not have the Smaug fight in it. Just meeting him and talking with him would be dragging it out too long.

 

[FrodoEyes]

'The Desolation of Smaug' isn't about a fight, it's the name of the surrounding area on the map, or 'The Desolation of the dragon'. It could be about how his presence has affected the world. We can see that as soon as the company enter Mirkwood - the fact that it's called Mirkwood and not Greenwood now shows that evil things are happening. And we can see the 'desolation' more when they arrive at Laketown and see the ruins of Dale and Erebor.

You can't drag out a battle for a whole film. Well, the last Harry Potter could, but alot more happens there. The battle itself in The Hobbit doesn't last that long - Bilbo is knocked out not long into it. It would be like dragging out the battle at the black gate in ROTK into one movie.

 

[cstojano]

Huh, you mean Smaug dies, ugh.

 

[cstojano]

I agree that the next cut is somewhat tough and the switch to a trilogy may be shown to really stretch things too thin. I thought the first film was way too long and we really didn't get much bridge material in there. Yes we have Rivendell and the Radagast stuff but other than that, much of the filler was with the Hollywood effects type of stuff.

I do imagine that if the death of Smaug ends film 2 then they at least need to get some hint of the impending Battle of Five Armies to set up film 3.

 

[The Josh]

Man the first film felt too short for me.

 

[cstojano]

I think there's a great 2 hour movie somewhere in the trilogy and hope some collector's edition box set will have something like a "literary cut" or some such thing. I get why they are doing what they are doing but also would like a Hobbit film true to the book a bit more.

 

[The Josh]

You're never going to get a literary cut unless someone does the same crap they've done with Star Wars. I love what Jackson has done with Middle-earth.

 

[cstojano]

You probably liked the prequels as well, just guessing here

 

[The Josh]

You probably liked the prequels as well, just guessing here

Yeah, I like the SW prequels. What's your point? I read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings every year and love Tolkien. He created an awesome world though it does have some issues (Tom Bombadil). Jackson has done an amazing job of bringing that world to life with so much of the feel from the books. So I love what Jackson has done.

 

[Buttmunch]

I read the books after seeing the films (LotR) and I have to admit Jackson only improved Tolkien's work. He had a lot of crap that needed cutting out and fixing and Jackson did just that.

I'll have the see the other 2 films of the Hobbit to compare it o the book. Its become more of an epic rather than simple treasure hunting story. Not sure if that is an improvement or not yet. But adding Azog for the final battle will only improve that. Tolkien flat out sucked with his battles. He'll describe some tree for three pages but give one paragraph to an epic battle and kill people 'off screen.'

 

[Bucky Underbelly]

Not to veer too far back on topic wink1 but this appears to answer our question:

https://herocomplex.latimes.com/2013/01/16/hobbit-fx-wiz-joe-letteri-on-gollum-the-goblin-king-and-azog/#/0

He was originally played by an actor in prosthetics and then redesigned/replaced by a CG character at the last minute. (See video #3.)

 

[Fritz]

Not to veer too far back on topic wink1 but this appears to answer our question:

https://herocomplex.latimes.com/2013/01/16/hobbit-fx-wiz-joe-letteri-on-gollum-the-goblin-king-and-azog/#/0

He was originally played by an actor in prosthetics and then redesigned/replaced by a CG character at the last minute. (See video #3.)

That was bad ***! CGI Azog is so much cooler than Yazneg would have been as Azog. Although I think I still would have preferred an actor but I'm not really that bothered by it. Anyway, looking forward to seeing Bolg.

 

[Wetanut]

Am still a bit disappointed that Manu Bennett didn't appear on screen. Was curious how his acting would have been without all the gratuitous gore and sex scenes that Spartacus had deterioriated into. He was one of the few watchable actors in that series.

 

[Bucky Underbelly]

That was bad ***! CGI Azog is so much cooler than Yazneg would have been as Azog. Although I think I still would have preferred an actor but I'm not really that bothered by it. Anyway, looking forward to seeing Bolg.

I dug the design of the new and improved CG Azog ... (the design of the one they covered up seemed far too busy and confusing to my eye) ... but I too wish they would have done that design as an actor in a suit and makeup, rather than a full CG character.

Don't get me wrong, Azog represents some solid CG work. And in any other movie he would have looked fantastic. But when you put him in a movie next to the brilliantly photo-real CG work on Gollum ... well, that just made Azog feel more digital than he might have otherwise. If that makes any sense.

Great work, but he felt digital to me. He never quite tricked my eye like Gollum did.

 

[ExMem-LarjaThwei]

Am still a bit disappointed that Manu Bennett didn't appear on screen. Was curious how his acting would have been without all the gratuitous gore and sex scenes that Spartacus had deterioriated into. He was one of the few watchable actors in that series.

Deteriorated into?

It's always had extreme sex and violence.

 

[NAZGUL-KING]

I wasn't that thrilled about the CGI appearance of Azog the first time I watched The Hobbit, but after seeing it a couple more times I'm not bothered by it at all. Bring on an Azog statue already!