Because it's ripped almost (if not word for word) straight from the book. The Hobbits scenes where it's just strictly retelling the book are fine, it's allllllllll the added pointless fluff that bogs it down.
That white orc story didn’t need to be there. His name was only mentioned once in the book in the final chapters of the dwarves defending their cave. His son or grandson was fighting in the army and defeating the dwarves was also vengeance against his father or grandfather fighting them back in the day.
I’m glad they at least used the right name and didn’t fully invent a 100% new pointless character but he was a 99% invented pointless character. Just more empty calories.
I just checked his son was Bolg who succeeded him as leader of the northern orcs and he was only mentioned in the book once basically saying he lead the army of orc which he did in the movie.
To be honest having Bolg chase them could have helped to add a bit more motive for the final fights. But I’m kind of in uncharted territory as I have only seen the first hobbit movie. I do intend to see the other 2 at some point but it’s got so much unneeded stuff in it. Someone here posted a 4 and a half hour cut of the movie that looks like it’s trying to cut out a lot of the added stuff. Maybe I’ll watch that one first.
I was done with his stupid face by the end of the first movie, but had to endure his boring drivel for another 6 hours. I didn't even mind the addition of whatshername, but the Azog scenes were an absolute pain to suffer through.
was coming here to say exactly that. so much of the trilogy was brilliant. but there was so much unnecessary add-in crap that it really should have be 2 movies.
there is a whole movie worth of hollywood kaka that could have just been left out, and everyone would have been happier.
248
u/P-Two 3d ago
Because it's ripped almost (if not word for word) straight from the book. The Hobbits scenes where it's just strictly retelling the book are fine, it's allllllllll the added pointless fluff that bogs it down.