why didn't they just use the Eagles to take the ring to Mordor
I actually wondered that, too.

It's a topic of occasionally heated discussion but I think the best explanation is that as higher spirits (lesser angels of comparable power with the Wizards), they were forbidden to intervene in the day to day affairs of Middle Earth. Also, they would have been just as vulnerable as Gandalf to the power of the ring and would have been corrupted by it.

Their unexpected arrival here though amounts to a miracle granted by The One to worthy people in need.

I just came back from seeing it. I loved it, but it was very bittersweet for me.

I can't remember who Azog is, and it's been so long since I've read the book, I can't remember what the change was to the Troll scene.

In the book, there is no battle scene with the dwarves: they just get picked up one by one as they start searching for Bilbo. And its Gandalf who tricks the trolls into talking 'til dawn. I understand the reason for both changes, but I missed the charm of the scene in the books.

Azog is the white one-armed orc. He appears in the LOTR appendices but there he died in the battle at the gates of Moria. I understand in principle having him in the movie to move the action along, but the execution fails for me. I thought the CGI and dialog for him were both considerably sub-par.

Edited at 2012-12-18 11:04 am (UTC)

I really loved it--it's funny, I quibble with nearly every micro-level decision Jackson makes, but the broad sweep and emotion of it feels true and exhilarating to me.

I can understand being annoyed at adding Azog, but I'm pretty sure he serves the pragmatic narrative purpose of giving us a clear villain once Smaug is dead (which is likely to happen at the end of the second movie, saving the war for the third). If Smaug is our big baddie, when he dies people are going to be like "Okay, so we're done, right?" Having Azog still out there, and Thorin with a personal grudge against him, will give Thorin a Big Dramatic Reason to re-enter the fight at the end. I'm not thrilled at the addition, but I can totally see why they did it.

Absolutely. It's possible to nit pick your way through most every scene (short of the Riddles in the Dark) but he overall scope is just amazing.

Aha! I never thought of what the 3rd movie would be but what you say makes perfect sense. I wonder though if they'll actually kill Smaug in the second movie or just leave us on a cliffie with the dragon still in control.

It's funny: I've never seen such divided opinions on a movie, even among people who agree that it was great. One person's favorite part is another person's least, more so that for any other movie that I can think of. The eagles left me sort of flat in LOTR; here, they left me breathless. I adored the eagles. I think the only thing that everyone agrees on is that Jackson & Co. kicked the "Riddles in the Dark" sequence so far out of the park that they'll have to give up all hope of finding the ball. :-)

Seconding what mithen said about Azog possibly paying off in the third movie. They're working on Thorin's motivational structure on a lot of these changes — they made the conflict between Thorin and Thranduil, too, much more personal, which makes not only the Mirkwood sequence in movie 2 delicious to look forward to, but Thorin's situation at the climax of movie 3 pretty amazing as well... that's a guy who's going to honestly feel he's surrounded by enemies by the time things come to a head.

I think the different reactions are so intense because the movie is really really good but it does have its moments where your suspension of disbelief may get triggered, or the inevitable book comparison comes up. All too many critics (esp the paid ones) let themselves drown in the shortcomings and the debate over the frame rate and length and comparisons to LOTR, and missed seeing the film for what it was - an Adventure!!!

Yes, I have to agree with huzzlewhat and mithen. I bet they will devote Movie #2 to getting to Erebor (meeting Beorn, going through Mirkwood, fighting the giant spiders, getting pulled off the path by following the Wood-Elves, getting captured by the elves, escaping down the river in barrels, meeting the Men of Dale, and heading to Erebor and then finally Brand of Dale kills Smaug.)

Movie 2 will end with the triumphant death of Smaug, and then everyone will go, "Hey, there's a huge dwarven treasure under the Mountain, just there for the taking!"

So in movie #3, we'll have the Men of Dale and the Wood-Elves headed to Erebor; Thorin and Company besieged in Erebor and Thorin sending word to Dain in the Iron Hills; the negotiating and posturing; Bilbo giving the Arkenstone to Thranduil; then Thorin getting really mad at Bilbo; and then the climactic Battle of Five Armies. As the above posters say, this would be a good time to bring back Azog for that up-close-and-personal feud with Thorin Oakenshield. Thorin, of course, will die heroically, and the differences between Elves, Men, and Dwarves will be reconciled.

This doesn't even count Bilbo coming home to Bag End and finding all his possessions being auctioned off.

So yeah, I think Peter Jackson et al can drag this whole thing out into three different movies. :)

I've always thought the decision to split the movie in three derived from coming up with a suitable climax for movie 1 if it was only 2 movies. I guess it would have been the escape from the Elven kingdom, but that wouldn't have been nearly as effective (for me at least) as the break we got here, with the Eagles and Thorin's apology to Bilbo.

But I hadn't thought out what that meant in terms of Movie 3 - now it all makes even more sense!

I must say, I'm looking forward to the Desolation of Smaug so much I almost can't wait!!!

Have refused to read this right now, but I'll be coming back to this when I've seen it (I've got too many gigs lately), but I hope it lives up to my expectations!

Yes the Eagles - for that matter why didn't they just drop them off at the Mountain! But on the whole I enjoyed the movie too (A-/B+).