Elijah Wood Confirms Dual Hobbit Movie Details

January 11, 2008
Source: MTV

Elijah Wood Confirms Dual Hobbit Movie Details

Now that everything is settled with Peter Jackson and New Line Cinema and The Hobbit is moving forward, details are slowly (but surely) starting to come together. Our friends over at MTV caught up recently with Lord of the Rings star Elijah Wood and got all sorts of exciting details out of him about The Hobbit, since he is, of course, good friends with Peter Jackson. One of the most exciting tidbits he spoke about was how the two Hobbit films would work, and being a huge Tolkien fan myself, I'm somehow even more excited.

"I haven't spoken to [Peter Jackson] directly about it [but] I've e-mailed him, and as far as I know the two films that they're doing, one will be 'The Hobbit' and another will take place between the 60 years that happened between 'The Hobbit' and 'The Lord of the Rings,'" the once and future Frodo enthused to MTV News, possibly confirming rumors that the second planned film would not be a Part II, but instead a narrative bridge.

It was first mentioned way back in 2006 that the book would be "split" into two films, one to come out in 2010, and the other in 2011. However, details as to what exactly this meant haven't been discussed until now, but it is at least confirmed that two Hobbit films will be made. As Elijah Wood describes above, it may be that the first film will be the entire book, and the second a continuation of The Hobbit that leads into Lord of the Rings.

As much as I'd like to believe every last word that the guy who played Frodo has to say, there could have easily been some miscommunication. Either way, Elijah does say that he'd love to return if the "narrative bridge" second film did actually happen and it involved Frodo in some way. His enthusiasm to return to the world of Middle Earth is certainly prevalent: "If I'm asked to go back and revisit that character and it makes sense, I would love to. I would absolutely love to."

As for what exactly the second film might involve, even Elijah is unsure. There is certainly no actual story told between the two books, give or take a few references in later books about conversations and journeys with Bilbo and the death of Frodo's parents. However, I'm slightly worried that the Hollywood machine might drum up a filler story and stuff it to the gills with unnecessary plot points. Either way it turns out, Elijah says he would certainly be glad to return.

"Nothing was really written with Frodo involved in it. That was sort of an ancillary tale outside of 'Lord of the Rings.' I can't imagine that they [Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens] would write great reams of information regarding my character," he said of necessary invention outside of Tolkien’s established canon. "But if [Frodo] should show up, it would actually be the perfect way to revisit because it could be small enough that I could go back and have a nice sort of reunion with the memories that I have of the experience."

And as for the "Return of Peter Jackson" (albeit only as a producer) and his settlement with New Line Cinema, even Elijah is excited. It's comforting to know that the star of the Lord of the Rings series is adamant about making sure The Hobbit turns out as great as Lord of the Rings and is directly connected to that universe that Jackson originally created.

"It's a great triumph [that Peter is involved.] I think that's really important that the same team that worked on the [earlier] films [work on 'The Hobbit'], the same effects team, that it be shot in New Zealand. I think that it's important that Ian McKellen is cast as Gandalf, just so that there's a synergy between the films," he insisted. "I think people want it to exist in the same world. So at least now we are assured that it will be done through that same lens, which is great. It's exciting."

I could not agree more with what he has said. I might even boycott this film if Ian McKellen isn't cast as Gandalf, but we still have quite a while. Until more details are revealed, including an actual director, we'll always be here to bring you the latest rumblings on The Hobbit. I know it's one of my own most anticipated films coming up in the next decade and we'll be sure to keep all of the fans up-to-date as well.

Find more posts: Movie News, Rumors



Sounds sweet. Let's do it again!

Sinner on Jan 11, 2008


Ill be looking forward to this, loved the three. Lets hope it doesn't get messed up.

Justu on Jan 12, 2008


well this is just crap, absolute crap there is no reason for them to make a filler story. that is not how they were written and i really don;t care if they think the people want is just plain wrong

ron on Jan 13, 2008


the first one lost me, never saw the second two too many battles, too many explosions and fake special effects, and that killed the deep metaphysical substance of the book... so i don't care who is involved, it is all about money

gregory on Jan 13, 2008


explosions??? LOL, what series did YOU watch? Mission Impossible? I'm a huge fan of the books and although the movies don't do the books perfect justice, its still a very good series. And if it were about money, the movies would not be 3-4 hours long (extended versions). They would have shot off the movies as fast as possible, using lots and lots of CG for the backgrounds and creatures. Yes, they used CG, but they also had many actors, great costumes, and the movie was filmed in New Zealand, they had to prepare the locations for over a year to make everything look authentic. If you're obsessed with having the movies be parallel with the books, I suggest watching the extended versions. They are VERY much different than the original release. (Example, pippin having a MUCH bigger role in The Two Towers.) If you choose not to watch it because you think they have "too many battles, too many explosions, and fake special effects" i suggest you stay away from modern movies all together. As for The Hobbit, I'm excited to hear the news. As for the "filler story," I'm very skeptical.

dan on Jan 13, 2008


This is indeed very very bad news. To those that love the Lord of the Rings, the only thing more sacred is the Hobbit itself. I was so happy to find out that Peter Jackson had been excluded from ruining any more of Tolkien's work with stupid love affairs, stupid rides on Wargs, and yes *explosions*. Despite the fact that nothing in Middle Earth *should* explode, they do. Didn't anyone see King Kong for cripes sake? This man (Peter Jackson) and his so-called scriptwriters could not create a believable movie to save their lives. The fact that they are even *considering* a second movie composed of completely MADE-UP material set in the "Middle Earth world," should be a HUGE red flag. Every time there is something moving and wonderful in LOTR, it's because they managed to use Tolkiens actual words and directions, and every single part of LOTR that sucks, is a part that Peter Jackson or his wife, or his wife's best friend added themselves for "dramatic reasons." Please don't let this idiot ruin the Hobbit as well. They are already going to need a stand-in for Bilbo at absolute minimum. Let's just forget about it for another ten years until someone with real talent can use the technology available *then* to do it right.

Tom Bombadil on Jan 13, 2008


I agree with Tom. These movies will be complete disasters, although I'm sure best sellers. The idea of making a 'filler' movie is all you need to identify the cheap schmuckery going on here.

Micah on Jan 13, 2008


It's comforting to know that the star of the Lord of the Rings series is adamant about making sure The Hobbit turns out as great as Lord of the Rings and is directly connected to that universe that Jackson originally created The universe that Jackson originally created!!!! Did I miss something??? there was me thinking that Tolkein created it. whatever you may think about Jackson as a director, I cannot imagine that anyone would think that he has even 1% of the literary genius to create a whole new film worth of material, sounds like another case of hollywood cashing in its chips (well they liked the last four, even if its crap, enough people will go to see the last one, just out of sentimentality....)

Zulfikar Najmudin on Jan 13, 2008


the funny thing is that everyone who is dissing this soon to be movie will probably go see it anyway, so why even talk trash about it if you are going to contibute to it?

Timmycobacs on Jun 9, 2011


As for me, I'm thrilled that they're making The Hobbit, and especially that the same Jackson team will be involved. Say what you will about some of their choices, but please realize that you will never find a team with a deeper knowledge, or more love, for Tolkien. I feel that they will do The Hobbit easy justice. When you consider how wrong Hollywood can go and how director's often share no interest in the material, it really is amazing how true to the books they remained. I am reminded of Spielberg's Jurrasic Park. There were some great parts of that book that were omitted and others that were changed, and they threw in that non-sequeter reference to virtual reality. It was like some kind of movie by committee. But of course there were the dinosaurs, the likeable Sam Neil, and the dinosaurs (did I already say that). Maybe I'm being too harsh on Speilberg. The second film, however, may be a different story. One can study Tolkien's works and understand the stories, but there is a huge gulf between writing a parallel work of the same quality. I would have preferred that they shot the Children of Hurin, or some narrative strung together from the Silmarillion, which I dearly love. The concept of someone inventing what amounts to a fifth book in the Tolkien series seems, well, heretical. And if there's on theing about Tolkien fans is that they love adherence and burn heretics. It would amount to international lynch mob if it went awry, and would forever sully the Tolkien franchise (which somehow Saul Zaentz owns???). That was probably the most wisely invested $10,000 in history. I think I would take a trust, but verify approach. I trust Peter Jackson to do his very best, but I think he is also shrewd and may start to leak some of the details to see how they are received. So keep your eyes opened for more news. You may very well end up shaping the coming movie.

Gerry on Jan 13, 2008


In reply to number 6. - yes *explosions*. Despite the fact that nothing in Middle Earth *should* explode, they do. Really? Then explain the following: "Even as they spoke there came a blare of trumpets. Then there was a crash and a flash of flame and smoke. The waters of the Deeping-stream poured out hissing and foaming: they were choked no longer, a gaping hole was blasted in the wall. A host of dark shapes poured in." Which Aragorn later describes as 'blasting fire'. Sounds a whole lot like an explosion to me.

wryterra on Jan 13, 2008


If you don't like it, don't watch it. Stop complaining. Do you think they will stop production because they read a comment on a website? They're making these movies whether you like it or not, and they may be terrible, but that is their own problem. If they are terrible, too bad. Don't lose any sleep over it.

James on Jan 14, 2008


In case anyone's interested, the whole idea of a second "narrative bridge" movie is Peter Jackson's. He pitched it to the heads of MGM, which then galvanized them to get involved and work as mediators to end the hatefest between Jackson and New Line so they could all get on with making The Hobbit. Everyone's going to have their own opinion of a completely new non-Tolkien LOTR story, but it's important to know that it's not just some random studio executive who's pushing for this - it's Peter Jackson himself. Take what you will from that.

Micah on Jan 14, 2008


In Peter Jackson I trust...

ModernDayDruid on Jan 14, 2008


I am a huuuuuge LOTR fan, read every book at least three times, and have studied every tidbit of every corner of every page. But I loved the movies! Why do you think Peter Jackson changed all that stuff? Do you even know how movies work? They are very different from books in a way that...well.... Movies have to be at least four hours before people go to serious hibernation. Love what Peter did, he really did suceed in making the books adapt into film, mind you. And why was the movies all about special effects and explosions? What do you expect in war? Fairies? And many of what Jackson included occured, just not at the same times. But remember, it's the only way the book can adapt itself to film to be adequete for the viewer, especially for people who haven't read the books. And now comes the Hobbit. Well they better pull this off. And, no leaving out Beorn or Rac! But I have full faith in them, and if your a stuck up snob that wants everything to be in the movie the the perfect way, you should get the memo: we don't care. And since I'm a fan, and so are you, you have no excuse when it comes to your knowledge in Tolkien's works.

Mark on Jan 14, 2008


Why are people so hard on old Petey? I'm a New Zealander myself, and Jackson's films captivated me. I watched the movies, then bought the books as a result of Jackson's dynamic work. In case you haven't noticed or have ignored most of the movies, there are special effects there that are so realistic that I could not tell they were fake - this is ground-breaking new technology that amazed the whole movie industry and viewers aroun the world. For all those with a negative outlook towards Jackson's work; Jackson's ARTWORK, I suggest you take a job as a professional critic and then write an article about yourself. I'm sure it would be very interesting. As I said before, I am a New Zealander, and the LOTR films made me look at my own country in ways I'd never seen before. Sure, I'd seen some mountains and forests and lakes, but nothing like the ranges of the White Mountains, the plains of Rohan, the forest of Lothlorien. And for those of you who think the scenery is all computer-generated, you're wrong. It's all real. Sure, some of the colours have been adjusted a bit, but they haven't just shoved in a huge rock in the middle of nowhere on a computer-generated terrain. I am really looking forward to The Hobbit movies and I am looking for a way to get involved. I trust in Peter Jackson. That's really it.

Michael on Jan 17, 2008


There is actually quite a bit of cool filler found throughout some of tolken's books and LOTR app. Gandalf figures very promently and ol' Saruman does too.

robster on Jan 20, 2008


It's dangerous to tinker with Tolkien's world by fabricating a movie-length bridge between The Hobbit and LOTR not based on Tolkien's work. It staggers my mind to ponder how any living human could pull that off without sullying the film franchise and poisoning Tolkien's work. Perhaps they could hire Christopher Tolkien as a consultant on the screenplay? He is probably the best-qualified person alive to possibly provide some insight into a plausible story line connecting The Hobbit and LOTR. Overall, I still don't think it's a good idea to attempt this. Making a film of The Hobbit with Peter Jackson involved, sure. Making a second film attempting to fill in the time gap with material not authored by Tolkien, perilous at best.

Patrick on Jan 25, 2008


you can never satisfy a purist,all life is a compromise,so why dont you all belt up and enjoy the antipcation of a visit to middle-earth in all its glory!

gary w. mummery on Feb 19, 2008


I really hope Elijah Wood will return as Frodo in The Hobbit films, and so should the other actors in their LOTR roles, like Aragorn and Gandalf. It wouldn't be the same without them. I disagree with those who say Peter Jackson and his movie trilogy are terrible. I have read the book and love it, especially the character Frdo, but I must admit that the movie version by Jackson was a whole lot more entertaining and modern. The books for example did not feature women that much, but the movies did. We do live in the 21st century.

SM on Mar 14, 2008


Wonder who is doing Hobbit music - Howard Shore??

Dogstar on Apr 8, 2008


Howard Shore will do the music for the movies, thats a plus, Ian McKellan as Gandalf, can't go wrong there, I hope Christopher Lee will be Saruman again, Andy Serkis as Gollum, Cate Blanchett as Galadriel, Hugo Weeving as Elrond, I think John Rhys Davies should be either Gloin or Thorin, I'd like to see Aragorn in it, Arwen as well, I guess Orlando Bloom will be Legolas, just wonder who will play Legolas Dad, Thanduril er something spelled like that, Again this movie should be filmed in New Zealand, and the whole subject of the battle of Five Armies, I think the battle itself should be on scale of somewhat larger than Helms Deep, but not as large as the battle around Minas Tirith. I'd like to see a soldiers of Gondor be represented in this battle, alongside other men(Rohan??) etc I guess led by the Rangers (Aragorn), Gondor always seemed to have the largest armies in the books, in Return of King movie, Gandalf asked the question Where are Gondors armies?? IN the book didn't Gondor have more soldiers than what was represented in ROTK movie?? anyway I'd like to see soldiers of Gondor be in the battle of the Five Armies. Also the statement made by Boromir in Fellowship that by our blood (Gondor) are your lands made safe. I just think it would make sense for Gondor to have troops at the battle of Five Armies since Gondor is largest kingdom in Middle Earth. anyway just a thought. In Fact I'd rather see a large force from Gondor arrive and help turn the tide of battle against the Orcs, wargs/wolves instead of the Beorn shape shifter character. It woud be cool. They could arrive at the sound of the horn, similar to Rohans arrival at Minas Tirith. Well I doubt this will happen, but to see a force from Gondor would be cool. Heck have Beorn in the fight as well. Why not have both. wow the possibilities of the wonderful world of Middle Earth. 🙂

Larry on Apr 10, 2008


If you have watched LOTR extended edition supplementary discs you will have picked up on the intention of Tolkien to create a myth for the modern English speaking world which they could come to 'own' and extend for themselves. By extending the story and introducing 'filler' plots this is exactly what the film makers are doing, albeit in a medium that would probably have surprised Tolkien because he suggested that the tale was not 'amenable' to dramatic interpretation, bearing in mind the available media of his time. And it's what has in fact been occurring with spin-off scenarios being developed in the Role Playing Game community for, well, decades now.

MichaelG on May 13, 2008


I am sorry Larry, but if they (New line cin, Peter Jackson)move in Gondor in "the Hobbit" i will kill them. It is ridicolous to implement Gondor or Rohan in this. And heck, its even ridicolous if they implement Aragorn, Arwen, Legolas and maybe they even implement Frodo...... I hope that they make Bolg and the orcs good, and Bard + the men of Esgaroth and the thing I really want to see is the dwarf army.

Tolkiendefender on May 13, 2008


Even though I've not read the Hobbit or Lord of the Rings for a long time, it stays in the mind. I can remember Gandalf describing his search for Gollum, how he was captured and kept by the elves for a while. Didn't Gandalf even go to Mordor following his trail? Perhaps he asked an ent for advice. I'm sure Treebeard mentioned it. And is this a chance for Tom Bombabil to have an entry into the movie version of Middle earth? There's plenty in the books but it will need a lot of skill to put it together as a 'narrative bridge'.

Sheena on May 19, 2008


i think a movie for the hobbit would be awesome. i am a lord of the rings fanatic. i watch the movies all the time (i watched ROTK just last night lol), and im currently reading the books. i only just aquired the 2 twrs extended and it is already one of the most watched movies in my house. i trust Jackson to create a great movie for the hobbit, his lotr movies were the best ive seen, the hobbit would make a great addition to the movies of middle earth. the special effects, music, acting, and all-around everything of those movies were awesome, i expect no less of the hobbit. a bridge between the hobbit and lotr, i dont know about. it would take moviemaking genius, a stroke of luck, and then some would be required to make a full-length movie bridge between these 2 stories. i think if they made an extended version of the hobbit, they might be able to slap on about 45 minutes of extra film that would greatly lengthen the movie and could be used to connect the hobbit and lotr. anyway, i tottally trust jackson to make a good movie of the hobbit, and maybe to make an add-on connecting lotr and the hobbit. LOTR ROCKS!!!!!!!!!11!!!!!!!!1!!!!!

the one lord of the one ring on May 30, 2008


what the hell is the matter with u all?? the movies where great. i didnt see any reason for someone to critsize them. u think u all are big movie talkers. u no what shut the fuck up. u dont kno shit. the movies where a great success and i cant wait for ANY others movies that have to do with it. and what are u talking about when u say too many explosions? JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP. u dont kno shit ok. And first off if u dont like the first one then dont watch the rest. dont sit here and bad mouth a great and skilled director who worked hard. its so easy to sit on ur ass and watch a movie and say how bad it is. he worked hard. al the bad talkers go burn in hell. u dont kno shit about Lord of the rings. FUCK OFF!!!

lotr fan 2020 on Jul 17, 2008


19, that was a silly comment about the LOTR movies being better than the books for being "modern". Women didn't all show off their Liv Taylor parts in ancient times. Modern times suck - so we either look to the past or struggle to overcome the ignobility of the present. You could find what you want in a harlequin "romance", a bunch of empty features of women, and nothing dynamic or Romantic. 21, Are you suggesting refilming the LOTR with a few additional Dwarf extensions? 26, I enjoyed the movies, but follow the language of the books, and quit swearing. If only Peter Jackson had put in the final Shire Battle, the hint of it in the font of Galadriel would have made sense, and after a series of digressions, there's be one sudden round of renewed suspense and action, with Saruman's death at last, then one more digression or so before the end. Jick Nacholson would have had to sit back done and shut his mouth (what a jerk, getting up while Frodo and Sam were still awaiting rescue at Mordor). That last idea occurred to me in a vein of productive thought, but what is done is done. Nonetheless, great cinematic experiences. As to writing in Tolkien's world, I would suggest a book be published first, to test the plot, before a filler movie arise. But that point was well taken, nonetheless. And what other movies ever had such music? I would write music for a Peter Jackson film if I ever got the chance. I'm an Elven Maestro.

Peter Jackson on Aug 6, 2008


what about Radagast the Brown? he was left out of the trilogy, but i think he's mentioned in the hobbit. would the second movie culminate in the white council driving the necromancer from dol guldur...some device of saruman? maybe after this sci-fi channel could do a silmarillion mini series. although as much as i like their idea of doing dune and the sequels, they didn't touch the 1984 dino de laurentis and david lynch version, if only they could've done the sequels. how about lynch, toro and pj on a silmarillion trilogy

Kevin Bonelli on Oct 21, 2008


Actually, as far as the 'explosions' go, read the book again. there in fact ARE explosions and the fire used to blow up the wall in Helm's Deep actually happened in the story, it just wasn't as hyped up. but it's there, go read the Battle of Helm's Deep 😉 and as for you, Tom Bombadil, you having such an alias as that should know much more than you appear to. the movie that they are planning on doing as the second movie is in fact IN THE LORD OF THE RINGS. it's all information gathered from the appendices. clearly you don't know about book-to-movie adaptations and that they can't parallel the books EXACTLY and there are going to be artistic liberties. if you're such a purist that you can't see the work of art for what it is, that's a shame. and stupid love stories? stupid rides on wargs? all in the lord of the rings OR hobbit. me, i couldn't care less about the Hobbit as a movie, there's not enough character development, quite frankly. what i DO care about is the second movie, because it will be more of the back story. and yes, Mr. Tom Bombadil (who, in my opinion, is the silliest character in the book... why you chose him as an alias is beyond me), the info that movie will be based on DOES COME FROM THE BOOK. i suggest you go read the last part of the Silmarillion and the Appendices in the LOTR again.

N3uromancer on Dec 21, 2008


Where are you people getting this idea that the 2nd movie will be 'made up' and not even in the story??? clearly you people don't understand Tolkien's life and his life work known as The Lord of the Rings. I'm sorry, but the trilogy was NOT a book that Tolkien sat down and wrote in a year or two. this was A LIFE-LONG work, literally. Hell, you probably don't even know that The Hobbit and LOTR proper weren't even the first conceptions of the storyline, though it seems to be viewed as such. The point is, that Tolkien didn't just write a book or series of books, he wrote and ENTIRE HISTORY, with working languages, races, cultures, sub-cultures, personalities-- and the actual LOTR trilogy only being a SMALL portion that happened to be published. There has been enough of Tolkien's writings printed and published to do probably 50 more movies, all 3-4 hours long. The fact is you just haven't read them. so to say all this junk about making up the movies and Peter Jackson is treading on holy ground to write movies about a story that doesn't exist is just plain ignorant. It's ALL there, and more of it to go around. Hell, 3 movies alone could be done about the rise and downfall of Númenor. what a great movie series THAT would make. Read the appendices and see that there was a whole lot more going on in Middle Earth while Aragorn and Co. were tramping through Moria, Rohan, etc. and yes, it's ALL written by Tolkien. Sure, some liberties will be taken and things made up, but that's the double-edged sword of adaptation that the ignorant purists will have to deal with.

Maicheneb on Dec 21, 2008


Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion. However, to simply pan such works of art as the LOTR trilogy films is to atampt to negate that art to a scrap heap of wasted film. I am currently watching the trilogy for the third time and sit just as awe-inspired as I did when I saw the very first one years ago. I have read the Hobbit and the Trilogy four times and I am contemplating taking the journey one more time in the near future. The whole Tolkien world is a fantastic, magical, compelling place to spend several hours per day in. I will be 72 this year and of all the books I have ever read, only four have held my interest enough to re-read them over those years. They are: The Bible, Lord of the Rings, The Chronicles Of Narnia (C.S. Lewis) and Centennial (James Michner). The only disappointment I had with any of the three films is that the ending (which was alluded to when Frodo looked into the Mirror of Galadriel). The "Scouring of the Shire" was one of the most important capstones of the whole trilogy. It tied everything down and truly "finished" the story. I only wished that Peter Jackson had ended the trilogy this way and not the chopped off way it did end. From the look of what Frodo saw in the mirror, there was at least some film "in the can" that might have been used to make the ending stronger. That is my only disappointment and it is really not a complaint. I am eagerly looking forward to the Hobbit and, yes, the second part also. Truly there is more than enough information in the appendicees to tie eveything together much in the same way as The Appocripha serves to tie the Old and New Testaments of the Bible together. It may not be trly "holy" but it is good history.

BILL-BO on Jan 17, 2009


Please forgive my fragmented sentence. IE. "The only disappointment I had with any of the three films is that the ending (which was alluded to when Frodo looked into the Mirror of Galadriel) was changed pretty drastically."

BILL-BO on Jan 17, 2009


Actually, there is quite a bit of narrative in Appendix A of LOTR concerning Aragorn's early journeys. There is also material at the end of the Silmarillion concerning Gandalf's adventures between the story of the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings. They are summaries and sketches for the most part, but there is plenty of groundwork laid out by Tolkein in other works edited by his son, Christopher, that give a lot of detail about what happened in Middle Earth during those 60 years: "The Lost Tales" books and "War of the Ring" analysis by Christopher Tolkein. I think it is enough material to make a good second movie with. But let's face it, if they really want to continue this franchise, "The Silmarillion" is the book to develop into a trilogy: Beren & Luthien, the Children of Hurin, and the Fall of Gondolin

Joe Neri on Jan 26, 2009


In my humble opinion mr.Jackson did an outstanding job with the LotR trilogy. That is when the extended versions of the films are seen as his true aim from the start, coz we all know that the widescreen ones were a ...necessary evil. I am a big fan of J.R.R.Tolkien's books and although english is not my native language, I cherish the original english text, simply because anything else would be a compromise. That said, I admit that certain parts of the author's work that didn't find a way to the movies and that kinda dissapointed me. Characters like the Elven lord Glorfindel, the twins Elladan and Elrohir or even Aragorn's Rangers (the grey company) should have somehow make an appearance in the films (believe me, even people ignoring their existance would be excited to see them in action demostrating their awesome battle prowess *sigh*) Tolkien was not a modern writer, hence the presence of women in the books is, if I might say, selective. Women in Tolkien's world come from all backgrounds, noble or humble and represent all things good, virtuous and true, being a constant reminder that war is simply a horrible and unnatural thing. In a war-torn era they act as a symbol of inspiration for men, whether they are heroes or common soldiers. By no means are they neglected. Heck, Tolkien underlines their special nature by having Eowyn (and not a pompous man) slay the Witch King, the bane of Arnor. All Im sayin is that it just didn't feel right replacing Glorfindel with Arwen. Jackson obviously felt this, hence a hint of Glorfindel's supernatural ability to appear simultaneously in *both* worlds (light and shadow) is shown when Aragorn fends the Nazgul away from wounded Frodo at Weathertop. Not a thing that many viewers noticed... Oh, and I totaly agree that the scouring of hobbiton should have been there. So apart from little bits and pieces here or yonder, the movies were truly amazing. I am a bit sceptical about the Hobbit movies, but I prefer to be optimistic and open minded. Since its too early to have a bigger picture, all Im looking forward to is a serious approach to the story, just as Peter Jackson did with LotR. Thanx for reading.

Jason on Mar 6, 2009


I wonder if the second film is gonna be based around the "White Council" story

Big Poppa Phil on May 11, 2009


I think making a second Hobbit movie is a bad idea. On IMDB right now it says that the 2nd Hobbit movie takes place 1000 years after the Last Alliance when Gandalf and the other wizards first come to Middle Earth. There wasn't much literature on this point in time, at least not enough to make a whole movie. I think i can speak for most Tolkien fans, like myself, that they would be very disappointed in this film. I also think, that if they take their original idea, which was to make a connecting film between the Hobbit and LOTR, that it will still not satisfy Tolkien fans. I believe that they should do a second movie, but not call it the Hobbit, and not have it deal with the Hobbit at all. I think they should either A) do one specific story from the Silmarrillion that Tolkien fans love, such as the story of Beren and Luthien, Turin Turambar, or the Fall of Gondolin. B) The War of the Ring: they could film the part of the story that was never told in detail in Tolkien's writings, but was referenced several times in ROTK and the Appendices: the Battle of Dale. At the same time the Battle of Pelannor Fields was raging outside the walls of Minas Tirith, there was a battle taking place in Dale and Erebor as well. The men of Laketown and Dale fought with the Dwarves of Erebor and the Iron Hills against and army of Easterlings and Orcs from Rhun, the land to the Northeast of Mordor. They could make this story into a full length movie and even make references to LOTR. For instance, perhaps Dale sends scouts to Edoras to ask the Rohirrim for aide, but they get there to find that the whole army has already left for Dunharrow, and then to Gondor, basically, you could film an entire scene at Edoras, and use the same location and set. The audience would also already be familiar with the area of the film because of the Hobbit movie, as well as be familiar with some of the characters, such as Dain Ironfoot, who is killed in the battle, Thranduil, and Celeborn. Personally, i think this would be the way to go, and i hope the filmmakers read this post.

Luke on Dec 23, 2009


Oh and i forgot to mention, since Thranduil is Legolas' dad, i think they should bring Orlando Bloom back for the role of Legolas, even if it is just a small one like maybe him sitting and speaking at the meeting that takes place when the Dwarves are captured. But it would be awesome to see him actually fight in the Battle of Five Armies.

Luke on Dec 23, 2009

New comments are no longer allowed on this post.



Subscribe to our feed or daily newsletter:

Follow Alex's main account on Twitter:

For only the latest posts - follow this:

Add our posts to your Feedlyclick here

Get all the news sent on Telegram Telegram