I don't mind Azog's presence at all. I've always felt like the Battle of Five Armies seems fairly random and an obvious plot device to wrap up the conflict between the humans, dwarves, and elves. Azog's obviously going to be the leader of the goblin armies in that battle, giving it a bit more of a cohesive place in the plot.

I still prefer Lord of the Rings Online's Radagast, who is very stately and elegant with lots of cute animal friends, but movie!Radagast was highly amusing. I've seen him compared to Jar-Jar Binks and I question whether or not those people have actually watched the prequels because Jar-Jar made me want to punch him in the face every time I saw him. I even liked the bunny sled. I could see movie!Radagast and Tom Bombadil hanging out.

Galadriel's teleportation bothered me too, but until PJ demonstates otherwise, I'm going to assume that she was projecting her astral form there or something similar. They did imply in the LotR movies that she and Elrond teleconference via psychic powers.

I'd have to say the one thing that irritated me the most/bothered and confused me was the references to the Witch-King during the White Council's meeting. They refer to the Witch-King being killed and buried in a magically-sealed tomb in Angmar. This makes no sense whatsoever given what we know about the history of the Ringwraiths in both the books and the movies. They seem to be implying in The Hobbit that the Witch-King and the rest of the Ringwraiths died as evil fully human men and then were resurrected by Sauron and given their rings. Anything else makes the Witch-King's arrogance over his perceived immortality so incredibly absurd that it ruins the character. Plus Eowyn's victory over him didn't leave a body, meaning a previous death wouldn't have left a body to be buried. But if Jackson is going the route of making the Ringwraiths something created during Sauron's time as the Necromancer, it doesn't fit with the fact that they're clearly very old and very well known in the LotR movies, not to mention it completely ignores the fact that Tolkien wrote that Sauron gave them their rings in the Second Age when he was handing out rings like cheap doorprizes.

I both agree and disagree, especially about the Witch king of Angmar. Much of the padding in The Hobbit does come from the appendices at the back of LOTR, and from other sources, such as the Unfinished tales. According to these histories, the Witch king had been fairly active in the old days of Arnor, after Sauron's defeat at the hands of Isildur. One of the Witch King's signatures was the Morgul knife/sword that Rabadash

um, Radagast, shows to Gandalf. After Arnor's collapse, when its last king goes missing with the palantirs, there does seem a time of Watchful peace where the Nazgul remained hidden and inactive until Sauron became established at Dol Guldur, not far from the Gladden fields. I would have to know in detail what the Witch king had been up to all those years.

I take it that the White council that Gandalf attended in the book has already taken place in the movie, at Rivendell, before Gandalf and friends left? Does anyone know what will happen to Gandalf in the next movie, since he was to go to the White Council when he parted with the dwarves in the book? And what else would account for the presence of both Galadriel and Saruman at Rivendell? I don't worry that these characters might be able to apparate like HP and friends or teleport like the entire crew of Star Trek, you see. Only that they were at Rivendell at all. I did get a real sense of déja vu when Saruman denied or downplayed that the Necromancer or the Witch King at Dol Guldur was of concern. It seemed to me to be uncannily like the Ministry denying the rise of Voldemort in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.

Ughhh yes. The first time I heard about this I literally did not believe it. After all, The Hobbit is rated PG-13. Let's leave the giant rabbits for children's movies, hmm, Mr Jackson?

I liked Radagast as a wizard. He seemed nicer than even Gandalf, and it was easier to see why Saruman would consider him a bit of a fool. And I much prefer him riding something drawn by giant rabbits (were-rabbits?) than, say, wargs or polar bears. We don't all see rabbits as nice, cuddly little children's pets, even though I concede that because of rabbit pie, jugged hare and rabbit-felt hats, the sinister creatures are more useful pests than cane toads, at any rate.

I haven't made up my mind yet whether or not I like this movie. At first I thought I was just watching a re-run of the first bit of LOTR. Did Elijah Wood, reprising his role as Frodo, actually appear in that section of An Unexpected Journey? Or were his scenes spliced into the movie from screen cuts of Fellowship of the Ring?

I don't mind Azog's presence at all. I've always felt like the Battle of Five Armies seems fairly random and an obvious plot device to wrap up the conflict between the humans, dwarves, and elves. Azog's obviously going to be the leader of the goblin armies in that battle, giving it a bit more of a cohesive place in the plot.

Azog may be that leader - unless they follow the book and have Azog's son Bolg as the leader of the goblin army.

The Goblins are upon you! Bolg of the North is coming. O Dain! whose father you slew in Moria.

Perhaps Azog gets killed some time during the movie, and Bolg wants revenge for an even more recent reason?

Galadriel's teleportation bothered me too, but until PJ demonstates otherwise, I'm going to assume that she was projecting her astral form there or something similar. They did imply in the LotR movies that she and Elrond teleconference via psychic powers.

I've only seen the movie once, but I didn't notice any teleportation - is it not possible that she had recently arrived? Perhaps there's something I didn't notice. They would normally meet for communication, although it's correct that they might then communicate mind to mind, without spoken words.

[Celeborn and Galadriel] had much to speak of with Elrond and with Gandalf, and here they lingered still in converse with their friends. Often long after the hobbits were wrapped in sleep they would sit together under the stars, recalling the ages that were gone and all their joys and labours in the world, or holding council, concerning the days to come. If any wanderer had chanced to pass, little would he have seen or heard, and it would have seemed to him only that he saw grey figures, carved in stone, memorials of forgotten things now lost in unpeopled lands. For they did not move or speak with mouth, looking from mind to mind; and only their shining eyes stirred and kindled as their thoughts went to and fro. (Many Partings, LotR)

Tolkien wrote about this in other texts, and implied that it could be used over a distance.

And if anyone spotted it, could you give me a hint as to where Peter Jackson's cameo is? He said it was within the first 7 or 8 minutes, but I'd like to make sure I see it.

I saw an interview where he says that he's one of the Dwarves of Erebor who flee from Smaug's attack. He's not easy to spot, apparently.

I haven't made up my mind yet whether or not I like this movie. At first I thought I was just watching a re-run of the first bit of LOTR. Did Elijah Wood, reprising his role as Frodo, actually appear in that section of An Unexpected Journey? Or were his scenes spliced into the movie from screen cuts of Fellowship of the Ring?

Elijah Wood came back to have a role - a rather small one - in The Hobbit. So the scenes where he appears, were filmed for this movie.
Edit:
Ian Holm came back for those scenes, too.

I saw the movie yesterday - and I loved it! I'm one of those that have not read the book. (I haven't read Lord of the Rings either). I've tried, but can't get past the first couple of chapters. Please don't hate me or ridicule me! I pretty much have to be captivated by a book before the end of the first chapter (definitely by the end of the second) and Tolkien's writing just doesn't do that. My hat's off to you who enjoy the books.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to the next installment!

I have never tried reading lotr but than I thought I like c.s lewis writing and they are from the same time frame. I tried reading sherlock holmes, it was enjoyable but I got lost with the language.

Anyway on topic, I have seen the movie, Martin freeman was the perfect bilbo(my views on this however may be clouded because I have been a fan of the actor for about 5 years and i see tv shows and movies because he is in it), and I was happy to see bret mckenzie (figwit) in the movie again. I don't believe the battle scenes were too long like most do.

I have avoided posting in this thread until I saw the film a second time, which I was able to do yesterday afternoon. Even though I liked it pretty much the first time, I enjoyed it more the second viewing since I knew what to expect. The third time (not sure when yet), I will be taking notes, so I don't forget anything.

Basically, Adeona summarized it for me:

Overall, I really enjoyed it. Some scenes were truly amazing, almost as beautifully adapted as anyone could have hoped. (though nothing's ever perfect). Other bits made me cringe and maybe want to smack Peter Jackson upside the head.

*a goodly number of book quotes! ♥
*the music, although from my first few listens of the soundtrack, it doesn't strike me as much as The LotR, which, to me, is incomparable, and will always be my favourite
*the NZ scenery is as breath-taking, as always
*loved the lengthy Dale/Erebor sequence, then moving to Gandalf and Bilbo's "Good morning" scene ... priceless!
*Yes, IlF, I agree that Freeman did a wonderful job as Bilbo
*thoroughly enjoyed seeing more of the inside of Bag End; especially liked his larder! I want to live at Bag End!!!
*aside from a wee bit of stupid humour with the Dwarves in Bag End, I found that entire scene lots of good fun and well done.
*LOVED the dwarves' singing, particularly the Misty Mountain song. Only one thing: it was too short.
*liked the Stone Giants, very cool (but a clarification in the "Negatives" section)
*the White Council was well done, I thought
*Riddles in the Dark - wonderful! (except for one caveat, listed below)
*Eagles flying with the company on their backs - I could have watched that, with the amazing music, for a lot longer ♥
*the ending was cool ... oooh, that EYE!

Negatives/disappointments/stupid stuff:
*potty humour
*really missed Gandalf's wordplay with the trolls
*way too much ridiculous and unbelievable action in the Stone Giant scene
*too many battles, albeit none overly long
*too many dumb falls down impossible depths
*Gollum giving Bilbo the hint for the Time riddle, instead of it 'providentially' happening with Bilbo desperately squeaking out "time, time ... "!

-Radagast. Sigh. Radagast! Tolkien created him as a sort of St. Francis of Assisi figure. Granted, Francis was a touch different, but I'm pretty sure he wasn't ditzy. Saruman says it comes from Radagast having eaten too many "special" mushrooms.

*Ditto! I couldn't stand PJ's portrayal of Radagast!!! Too silly; too frantic; that 'stoned' look he had was just dumb (*blames Old Toby and, yeah, mushrooms )
*the falling, burning tree was too much: it somehow reminded me of the ridiculous antics of Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner

She and Gandalf were also a bit too friendly. Not nearly as bad as the trailers led you to believe, though, so that's a plus.

Ditto!

*on a more minor note, I do wish that Bolg would have been the villian instead of Azog, who DIED DEAD outside of Khazad-dúm by Dáin II

I totally forgot to look for Jackson's cameo in the Dale scene!

I'm sure there are quibbles I have already forgotten about, but will irk me next time I see it, which is why I'm taking notes. Plus I know there are things I loved I have forgotten to list here as well, so another viewing is definitely in order.

Who was your favourite dwarf? Mine was Balin. Maybe it's because we know what his fate will be; maybe it's because he was always a little kinder than the others towards Bilbo. He is such a grandfatherly character, and I like his sensitivity and twinkly eyes.

Oh, what was with the Necromancer rumoured to having raised the Witch King of Angmar from the dead ... PJ added that, didn't he? That was never the case in Tolkien's mythology, I don't think. Or am I mistaken?

Oh, what was with the Necromancer rumoured to having raised the Witch King of Angmar from the dead ... PJ added that, didn't he? That was never the case in Tolkien's mythology, I don't think. Or am I mistaken?

It is highly possible that Tolkien did say something either directly or indirectly. In The Hobbit Sauron was referred to as the Necromancer, that is to say, someone who does magic with death. It isn't until LOTR that Sauron is referred to as Sauron and not by another name. Also, there is this that I found on Wikipedia:

In her duel with the Witch-king, Éowyn calls him a "dwimmerlaik". This is a word in the speech of Rohan (translated into Anglo-Saxon) that Tolkien glosses in the index as a "work of necromancy", a "spectre".

On the other hand the same article also comments about An unexpected journey.

In The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) the White Council claims that the Witch-king of Angmar was killed when Angmar was defeated, and that his enemies buried him in a tomb protected by enchantments. It is implied that the Witch-king has been raised from the dead by Sauron, explaining why he is called the Necromancer. This is a major departure from The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion, in which the Witch-King escapes after the destruction of Angmar, and Glorfindel makes a prophecy that he would not meet his death at the hand of man; in both the book and film version of Return of the King, the prophecy is fulfilled when the Witch-King is killed by a woman, Eowyn.

The point of the 9 rings of power Sauron gave to the men doomed to die - Numenorians I think - is that they wouldn't be able to die properly, and when Sauron made the One Ring he would be able to summon them at will. They would just linger on, fading in real life and becoming more visible on the other side. Angmar was near the region where the trolls were - Rhudaur I think it was called. I don't consider the Nazgul as properly alive even if they are not dead either.

I think that is what is meant. I could have read too much about Voldemort.

Yes, a few of the Nazgúl, at least, were (Black) Númenóreans. However, my pondering is that I hadn't realized the Witch-King had actually died at some point, and that the Necromancer had brought him back from the dead, as the film indicates (even though that is part of the meaning of his title). I thought the Nazgúl had gone into hiding when Sauron fell at the end of the Second Age.
Anyway, this discussion would be better-suited for SO's Tolkien thread.

I'm curious about what my fellow Narniawebbers think about the Azog subplot in the film.
I thought it was unnecessary, but I also thought it worked thanks to great execution.
My real problem with it is it's blatant rewriting of Middle-Earth history.

Do you'll think that Azog will completely replace Bolg and does that bother you?

Azog was one of my huge beefs after my first viewing, aragorn2. The second time I saw the film, I knew what to expect, so was prepared, but you're right: it's abusing (yes, I'm going to use that word instead ) M-e history, as Tolkien had Azog die at the hands of Dáin! (You know, for all PJ gets right, this still seems like one of his favourite pasttimes—switching things up where there is no need for change!) If anyone is in that role in the film, it should be Azog's son, Bolg, who is at least present in the original material. To me, The Hobbit, itself, is a grand story without an addition like Azog. Using some of the Appendices material is fine—well done and interesting, even—but to include that white Orc is totally non-canon and really irks me, being more opportunity for quick, violent skirmishes ... not my idea of solid additions to the adaptation of a marvelous book. In summary, I do wish PJ had not included him. He could have spent more time on stuff that matters!

EDIT: As to your last question: I wouldn't be surprised if Bolg never entered the third film, so as not to introduce yet another character. Thinking that PJ will keep Azog as a main villain, and have Beorn send him to his demise in the final Battle, as he did with Bolg in the book.

I'm still trying to decide whether I like the addition of Azog or not. It sort of makes sense in a round-about sort of way. As far as villains go, Smaug isn't all that exciting until you actually see him because he has little to no effect on the rest of the journey. Smaug is the final goal, but he does not cause all of their troubles along the way. Having Azog be not dead gives the story a higher sense of urgency and a more apparent villain for Thorin to fight.

The Dwarves in the books always seemed to me like a group of misfits who didn't really know what they were doing for the first two-thirds of the story (hence needing help with the trolls, the goblins, getting out of Mirkwood, etc.). Thorin, while clearly the Head of the Company, seemed unused to leading despite his never-wavering confidence. However, in the movie it seems like they are trying to paint him as a more heroic character. A Dwarf a bit out of his depth to be sure, but still a good leader even if he thinks all Elves are alike. Since they are making him more heroic (more like an Aragorn replacement ), he needed something heroic to do long before they reached the Lonely Mountain.

It's not the The Hobbit, but I don't think these films were ever really going to The Hobbit. I think they were always going to be The Quest for Erebor.

And yes, I doubt Bolg will ever appear. I think Azog will be the one to kill Fili, Kili, and Thorin and thus succeed in ending the line of Durin before Beorn finishes him off. I'm kind of hoping that Thorin gets to kill Azog though. If they're going to bother with all this build-up of added plot lines and heroic deeds they should at least end it with a triumphant note for Thorin.

It's not the The Hobbit, but I don't think these films were ever really going to The Hobbit.

Yeah, and it's exactly this that I am having trouble accepting.

I'm kind of hoping that Thorin gets to kill Azog though. If they're going to bother with all this build-up of added plot lines and heroic deeds they should at least end it with a triumphant note for Thorin.

You know, that does make a lot of sense. And if I could get over my stubborn miffedness at Jackson for my keen disappointment in Azog's presence, I'd love this idea.

I must say one thing for Azog: he is certainly looks more terrifying than that head-honcho marshmallow Orc in PJ's The Return of the King.

From someone who never read the book such as myself i thought the whole Azog thing was in the book, that is interesting. I think people who don't read the book before the film enjoy the film a lot more. Since you don't know what to expect. After I finish reading the original sherlock holmes collection i will get onto reading it.

I think people who don't read the book before the film enjoy the film a lot more. Since you don't know what to expect.

Definitely! I almost wish I hadn't read The Hobbit a 'gazillion' times because then I wouldn't have how I perceive characters and the story so entrenched in my heart and mind.

One thing I think no one can disagree on and that is the on-location cinematography was amazingly beautiful. Not surprisingly, given that it was New Zealand. ♥ Speaking of which, at the end of my second viewing, I stayed, as always, until the end of the credits. By that time the theatre had basically emptied out, so I clearly overheard an older couple asking a staff member where The Hobbit was filmed. Without hesitation he told them Switzerland. Wups! I immediately put that fallacy to rights.

Haha, Switzerland is a lot greener than those browned late summer mountain pastures you saw the dwarves trekking across. Typical NZ mountain area, also typical of our lowland city lawns at present!
Good for you giving the right answer!

New zealand is perfect for these types of films. I would agree that Switzerland would be too green for some scenes. I have to wait for the movie to come out on dvd before I see it again cinema prices in Australia or at least western Australia are ridiculous. I payed $13 and that was only because I was under 18 at the time, Now i would have to pay $16 or something and i don't want to tell you how much it costs to see 3d on adult prices. You can buy the dvd and have money left over for the price.