Smaug vs. Gollum

Who do you prefer and why?

I prefer Gollum, he has a lot more character, and we haven't seen that much of Smaug yet. He contributed massively to LOTR and was great in the Hobbit. So it's Gollum for me.

I can't respond properly to these types of topics. I mean, what are we even talking about?  

The question is Smaug vs. Gollum. As in which is the better villain, which 'monster' do you prefer?

Cowley 121 wrote:The question is Smaug vs. Gollum. As in which is the better villain, which 'monster' do you prefer?

For shame! Gollum is no monster!
Oh wait nevermind you put that in quotations.

Hands-down Smaug wins for best villain, best monster. There simply is no contest. Gollum is not really a villain, rendering the contest unfairly tilted towards Mr. Snacksoncrispydwarves.

But then again, I must ask for more clarification. If we're talking about the book characters, I think it is unfair to ask Smaug to measure up to Gollum when the latter has so much more development. If we are talking about movie characters, then I think this discussion is premature by about two weeks.

Smaug—I'm a sucker for well-rendered dragons, even evil ones. I even endured the excrescence that was Robert Zemeckis' Beowulf to see the dragon (which was pretty well-done). I'm almost tempted to see TH:tDoS to see if Smaug comes out at least halfway decent, though from trailers I'm not very hopeful. If I do somehow succumb to temptation and see TH part II and Smaug gets flubbed, I will hates the Jacksonss for ever!!!

As for whether Gollum was a villain or not, I'd go with the former. Yeah, he had some basic decency left in him, but he'd long ago reached the point of no return and if his actions led to the destruction of the Ring, it wasn't exactly for the right reasons.

(Yay! I've been upgraded to Clue-Finder!  )

In a prize fight, I'd have to put my money on Smaug.

Gollum, because he wasn't just pure evil without any characterization. There was an explanation for his actions, and I could see it from his point of view and understand his motivation beyond the typical "he's evil cuz he's the bad guy" simplicity. There's still some good in Gollum, and I feel that it's more true to life.

Honestly I'll pick a dragon over some schizophrenic with multiple personalities any day.

Gollum wasn't a "monster" or villain per say. He was a gimp with a mental disorder that wanted back something that never really was his to begin with. And was willing to do anything necessary to get it back. But he was more of a monster to himself than others.

Smaug on the other hand is a calculating, manipulative, killer, who boasts about killing dwarfs and eating them. Thrives on carnage and death, coveting treasure above all else no matter who he kills to get that treasure.

Smaug hands down is the greater villain IMO

All these vs.-threads lately..

I think Cowley is doing research.

Smaug wins hands down-a massive, red gold, badass arrogant scary dragon with a fondness for riddles and jewels.

Hmm Figgs has a point  

I wonder if this is some new idea concocted by the screenwriters-having Gollum turn up at the BOFA and wrestle with Smaug over the ring.

At this point NOTHING would surprise me...even if almost all of it would annoy me  

Norc wrote:All these vs.-threads lately..

Smaug vs. Glaurung!  

malickfan wrote:Smaug wins hands down-a massive, red gold, badass arrogant scary dragon with a fondness for riddles and jewels.

Hmm Figgs has a point  

I wonder if this is some new idea concocted by the screenwriters-having Gollum turn up at the BOFA and wrestle with Smaug over the ring.
At this point NOTHING would surprise me...even if almost all of it would annoy me  

SPOILER ALERT


Nah.... it's already been written in that Smaug will die at Laketown, by Bard firing a huge black arrow from a ballista taking Smaug down for all the crows and carrion birds to feast upon, leaving nothing but a gigantic skeletal dragon. With the Arkenstone for a heart. The white council shows up at DolGuldur with a bunch of Ninja elves.. That's when the Necromancer flees, He runs off to Laketown, where he will resurrect Smaug's corpse, possessing him to head to the BO5A. Then Thorin will jump on his back from the top of the lonely mountain, cutting off the resurrected dragons head. At which point Smaug's bones will shatter into millions of pieces. Meanwhile the witch king will swoop in on one of the fell beasts (so as we have no surprise in TTT when we see them) to break Gandalf's current staff, while the fell beast eats Radagast, leaving THAT staff behind for Gandalf to have for FOTR. The Witch King will then find Smaug's decapitated head and pluck out the giant dragon eye which grows with Sauron's power and will be Sauron's form thru the LOTR series.

OH MY GOD!!!!! Peter Jackson you are a fucking GENIUS!!!! .... OMG how could I not see this coming and kiss your ass and worship you?  I am so sorry I ever doubted you


Just kidding Pete....          

You forgot Arwen swooping in on a winged steed and kicking the Necromancer in the balls.

Sinister71 wrote:Nah.... it's already been written in that Smaug will die at Laketown, by Bard firing a huge black arrow from a ballista taking Smaug down for all the crows and carrion birds to feast upon, leaving nothing but a gigantic skeletal dragon. With the Arkenstone for a heart. The white council shows up at DolGuldur with a bunch of Ninja elves.. That's when the Necromancer flees, He runs off to Laketown, where he will resurrect Smaug's corpse, possessing him to head to the BO5A. Then Thorin will jump on his back from the top of the lonely mountain, cutting off the resurrected dragons head. At which point Smaug's bones will shatter into millions of pieces. Meanwhile the witch king will swoop in on one of the fell beasts (so as we have no surprise in TTT when we see them) break Gandalf's current staff and eating Radagast, leaving THAT staff behind for Gandalf to have for FOTR. The Witch King will then find Smaug's decapitated head and pluck out the giant dragon eye which will be Sauron's form into the LOTR series.

This is like, all the hair-brained ideas from torn put into one paragraph!  

bungobaggins wrote:

Sinister71 wrote:Nah.... it's already been written in that Smaug will die at Laketown, by Bard firing a huge black arrow from a ballista taking Smaug down for all the crows and carrion birds to feast upon, leaving nothing but a gigantic skeletal dragon. With the Arkenstone for a heart. The white council shows up at DolGuldur with a bunch of Ninja elves.. That's when the Necromancer flees, He runs off to Laketown, where he will resurrect Smaug's corpse, possessing him to head to the BO5A. Then Thorin will jump on his back from the top of the lonely mountain, cutting off the resurrected dragons head. At which point Smaug's bones will shatter into millions of pieces. Meanwhile the witch king will swoop in on one of the fell beasts (so as we have no surprise in TTT when we see them) break Gandalf's current staff and eating Radagast, leaving THAT staff behind for Gandalf to have for FOTR. The Witch King will then find Smaug's decapitated head and pluck out the giant dragon eye which will be Sauron's form into the LOTR series.

This is like, all the hair-brained ideas from torn put into one paragraph!  

I believe that scenario has been confirmed by one of Jackson's ball lickers over there.  

Now I'm going to be disappointed if that's not the case.

Fake edit: Wait, you didn't just make that up?

It's amazing to see internet comments of what people want from these movies.

Some people so wish to see Radagast die, not because they don't like him, but because it will explain how he is not in LOTR (some have gone so far as to suggest that he might turn into a moth).

I read somewhere that a person wanted the end of TABA to focus entirely on Sauron and his return to Mordor. That was their idea of a good ending. The fact that the focus should be on Bilbo is entirely lost on some people (including the filmmakers).

I read a comment on reddit a few months ago that described a desired scene in which Saruman summons Radagast to Orthanc and disposes of him.

And then there's the stuff about Smaug's eye turning into Sauron's eye, resurrecting Smaug, etc. These are usually said in jest. The ones I described above were not.

Eldorion wrote:Now I'm going to be disappointed if that's not the case.

Fake edit: Wait, you didn't just make that up?

Jackson's not the only one who can make up bad scenarios   Although if anything close to that happens in the films I will be forced to commit suicide by way of diving into a live volcano after biting my own finger off.  

   

I'm with you on being baffled by some of the things people want from these films, bungo. I remember three or four years ago when most people were still thinking in terms of the "bridge film", even though GDT had stated that idea was no longer in consideration, and people would post these giant lists of all the things they wanted to appear in a movie that would tie together TH and FOTR. Everything from Balin's death, to Bilbo's further adventures (?), to Frodo's parents' death and his childhood, to Aragorn's travels as Thorongil, to Gollum's searching for Bilbo, and more were being thrown out. How anyone expected all these disparate elements to fit into a single narrative I have no idea.

Then there are people who seem to just plain dislike The Hobbit, and applaud the "LOTR-izing" of it.

As an aside, I'm actually somewhat fond of the theory that the moth in FOTR was Radagast. Not that he permanently becomes a moth or anything, but that he had shape-shifted into one for the purposes of sneaking into Orthanc. I think I first heard this theory jokingly proposed by Petty, but I'm sure others have thought of the same thing. This was before we saw birdshit!Radagast in AUJ, though.

Eldorion wrote:Balin's death

This reminds me, recently a saw a commenter that wanted the end of TABA to include Balin entering Moria. Again, losing focus. Balin and Gandalf should visit Bilbo in the Shire. The End. But I don't think we'll even get that.

Eldorion wrote:Then there are people who seem to just plain dislike The Hobbit, and applaud the "LOTR-izing" of it.

This seems to be the majority. For now at least.

Radagast moth? Eh, maybe he sent the moth. I could buy that explanation. Although, I feel that having to come up with explanations for things just boils it all down to poor storytelling.

bungobaggins wrote:It's amazing to see internet comments of what people want from these movies.

Some people so wish to see Radagast die, not because they don't like him, but because it will explain how he is not in LOTR (some have gone so far as to suggest that he might turn into a moth).

I read somewhere that a person wanted the end of TABA to focus entirely on Sauron and his return to Mordor. That was their idea of a good ending. The fact that the focus should be on Bilbo is entirely lost on some people (including the filmmakers).

I read a comment on reddit a few months ago that described a desired scene in which Saruman summons Radagast to Orthanc and disposes of him.

And then there's the stuff about Smaug's eye turning into Sauron's eye, resurrecting Smaug, etc. These are usually said in jest. The ones I described above were not.

In all honesty all I EVER wanted from the Hobbit films was the story of the Hobbit. Nothing more... nothing less. That is all I still want. Sadly Jackson has made the Hobbit a story as much about Sauron's return and the ring as he has about Bilbo's adventure. Every chance he gets he feels the need to remind us of the LOTR, and "foreshadow" events that the audience doesn't need to know about in the time of the Hobbit. Something that has bothered me ever since seeing AUJ. And since seeing the EE of AUJ its even more troublesome. Close up and slow motion shots of the ring, Bilbo looking at the ring in the mural in Rivendell, All the obvious things that lead the audience to know exactly what it is Bilbo found in that cave. And pointing a bold finger at who it belongs to. Bilbo constantly fiddling with the ring in his pocket like Frodo did, like the ring was affecting him just the same. Which we never knew it did by seeing FOTR. All this foreshadowing makes Gandalf look like an idiot for not seeing it sooner what Bilbo's ring really was. Now in DOS showing Armies of Orcs massing for an attack, all the finding out about Sauron being the Necromancer, I'm sure more about the ring. And yet Gandalf is too blind to figure it out. I can't speak for anyone else but I hate the direction Jackson has taken the films. IMO he should have stayed closer to the book and not written as much fan fiction into Bilbo's tale.

All I ever wanted was the Hobbit on film nothing more.... Nothing less. Seems like a pretty easy task to me  must be I was wrong  

yeah Bungo it baffles me why people just want a bunch of random events in middle earth history in a single film. I mean talk about a horrible film. The would be no structure to it and would ultimately fail IMO.

Personally I like the idea of a small memory of Balin visiting Bilbo post adventure but pre LOTR. Maybe a small mention of Moria but something vague.

As far as Radagast i say KILL HIM!!! the Bird shit alone is worth his death. Honestly I think they will make one of the other main characters a martyr like Radagast or Tauriel. Something to make way for the events of LOTR to happen. Like Legolas's attitude towards dwarfs possibly cause by the death of Tauriel. Or Gandalf having Radagast's staff because of his premature death and Gandalf will carry on his work.

Sinister71 wrote:All this foreshadowing makes Gandalf look like an idiot for not seeing it sooner what Bilbo's ring really was. Now in DOS showing Armies of Orcs massing for an attack, all the finding out about Sauron being the Necromancer, I'm sure more about the ring. And yet Gandalf is too blind to figure it out.

The whole Necromancer subplot is so problematic (not just in terms of adaptation), but because Jackson is trying to make it into some sort of interesting mystery plot with investigations, round table meetings with discussion of evidence, etc. But the problem is, it's not an interesting mystery plot. Anyone with half a brain could have figured it out by now. He's tipped his hand, as you've pointed out, and it makes Gandalf look clueless, (and he'll be looking even more clueless when he's IMPRISONED IN A CAGE IN DOL GULDUR AT THE END OF DOS! ONLY TO BE RESCUED BY THE MOST POWERFUL BEING IN MIDDLE-EARTH: SLOW TALKING ELF LADY!). I think during that moment I will be staring at the emergency exit in the theater and trying my hardest to resist the urge to walk out.

Sinister71 wrote:yeah Bungo it baffles me why people just want a bunch of random events in middle earth history in a single film. I mean talk about a horrible film. The would be no structure to it and would ultimately fail IMO.

Personally I like the idea of a small memory of Balin visiting Bilbo post adventure but pre LOTR. Maybe a small mention of Moria but something vague.

As far as Radagast i say KILL HIM!!! the Bird shit alone is worth his death. Honestly I think they will make one of the other main characters a martyr like Radagast or Tauriel. Something to make way for the events of LOTR to happen. Like Legolas's attitude towards dwarfs possibly cause by the death of Tauriel. Or Gandalf having Radagast's staff because of his premature death and Gandalf will carry on his work.

I think, with all that shit on Radagascar's face, I want his fate to be that he failed his mission. That would be worse than death, in my opinion. Gandalf died fighting the Balrog, sacrificing himself for the Fellowship. I don't want Radagast to die as a martyr and try to upstage him. I want him to fail, and go away, and be forgotten about.