@ CJMatos: *Spoiler warning*…..but the dwarves did wind up in sacks at one point. I'm not entirely sure what your comments pertain to specifically, though it's been a few weeks since I've seen the movie.
@ I know that. What I wanted to mean (maybe poorly expressed) is that they all do not fight until day light comes up. In the book, they all were sacked and save by Gandalf playing with the trolls voices. That could be on the movie.
Wow, not sure whether you even understand the word adaptation, it certainly does not mean to film every word in the book exactly as it is. I certainly can imagine how rubbish that would be.
As for your first line, you surely cannot mean that. I do not know how big your knowledge of the Tolkien stuff is, probably quite big, but mine is also and I certainly would put him in there. I find it quite anti-climactic as the story is, where the Defiler gets killed right away, it adds a lot to have him live on and keep being a menace. "Every good story deserves embellishment." And it is easy to see that Jackson knows his Tolkien quite well, as he often touches on stuff found in Silmarillion or the History of Middle-earth.
I understand the word quite well. The translation word in my language is adaptação. And they meant the same. What I wanted to say is that adding characters that Tolkien himself (in his writings) says are dead by the time the story unfolds seems a bit pushy.
If it was some other Orc that was given a higher role (without mentioning his name) I wouldn't have any problem with it. But using a character from the lore of middle-earth that was dead by the time the story unfolds, hm….
I understand that Jackson wanted to strenghten the story with a character that was linked to Thorin's family (after all Azog killed Thorin's grandfather). But that is not sufficient to me to put a "dead character" as the villain of the movie. Even more because he choosed to show some images (interpreted and modified) from the battle in which Azog was killed.
This could be the same as to put Gilraen in Aragorn's coronation….
Other thing: Putting Thorin fighting Azog in that battle to show how he gain the nickname Oakenshield, I accept. But Dain Ironfoot could be in too, because he was the killer of Azog…
If he had choosen to show Azog killing Thror and didn't showed the Battle of Azanulbizar, probably i didn't had problem with it. But this way, doesn't enter in me… For me it is too much embellishment.
As embellishment, I had no problem to see Haldir in the Battle of Helm's Deep, although no Elves were there apart Legolas; or Arwen in the place of Glorfindel in the Fellowship escaping from the Nazgul;
Nevertheless I will see the other two films with the same expectation that i went to this… but we are all free to give our opinion and that is what i did.
@Raven: certainly that Smaug will get a bigger role on the movies… But remember that The Hobbit was written as a children book. And we all know how hard is to put children to read an entire book. It has to be swift, especially in the end (they are bore at that time)..