The Master of Laketown
He wasn't a villain in the book, so why did Jackson decide to turn him into a villain in the movies? I don't get it.
shareActually the Master did turn out to be something of a minor villain in the book, but his worst behavior did not take place until well after the Battle of Five Armies when he succumbed to the dragon-sickness. Tolkien painted him as little more than a shrewd, career politician.
Jackson was not going to touch on the rebuilding of Esgaroth following the slaying of the dragon, so he made the Master more villainous in the main story instead.
"Hell hath no fury like that of the uninvolved." - T. Isabella
Good point.
shareActually, he made the Master's annoying sidekick into that villain.
I don't understand that. If you go to the trouble of hiring Stephen Fry, why kill him off and give his role to a new character played by a less talented actor? Did Fry quit in mid-production and nobody told me?
“Seventy-seven courses and a regicide, never a wedding like it!
Fry might have only been available for a limited amount of time. Afrid did not survive long enough to steal the gold donated for the rebuilding of Lake-town. Instead he found a hidden cache in the ruins of Dale and met his end during the battle (in a ridiculously goofy manner). I imagined it differently.
"Hell hath no fury like that of the uninvolved." - T. Isabella