Hahahaha.

No no no. As much as I love Rowan Atkinson... it cannot be played by him. His comdey is much different then that is required to play Bilbo. Mr. Bean is an idiot... and same with the majority of his characters...clever idiots...but idiots. Great actor... if you get a chance... watch his stuff.

You know who would be great.... Richard Dean Anderson. He's got that suttle humour that everyone loves. Maybe not though... hmmm. Maybe Michael Shanks? I need to stop watching Stargate. He would actually be a good bilbo.

To those who are worried about the part of Gandalf. Hopefully we'll still have our gandalf... but if something should happen.. which I doubt. There is one in my mind who would make an excellent Gandalf. The guy who plays the captain on StarTrek Next Generation... Picard or something. Just give him some hair... and BOOM!

LOL, Picard would be good as gandalf, he has a good booming voice that could take down a balrog. Or how about John O'Hurley (Sienfelds J. Peterman), hes got a good voice for gandafl aswell. I do like the idea of Billy Boyd as Bilbo, he seems like he would play the part well.

Its sad to comprehend that we may never see Ian Holm for Bilbo, perhaps in years to come, they could make a CGI version of him, and he can speak the part. It could work

What about Danny Devito as a dwarf:laugh_pur

~wormtongue

EDIT: Sorry Foe Hammer, I swear it wasnt on purpose (even though this has happened before). I click the "Post Reply" button minutes after thorin finished his post, but I waited a while untell I actually wrote somthing, and I ended up looking like I stole your spot. Again, my apologies

Believe it or not guys, but Patrick Stewart is only 1 year younger than Ian McKellen. If this thing takes so long that Sir Ian is dead or too crotchety, Patrick is liable to be also.

Danny DeVito as a dwarf--what a hoot! He wouldn't even need prosthetics--just a beard! Seriously, tho, I don't think PJ would cast him. He's too well known and is just too Danny DeVito. PJ doesn't want the person's persona to get in the way of the character's believability.

I don't recall EVER reading that PJ considered Warwick Davis as Bilbo (or any other part). PJ's stated intention was always to cast full-size actors and use photographic tricks, etc. to make them appear smaller. Of course, PJ has been less than truthful about some of his other casting decisions. He claims the cast he got was his first choice for every part, with the exception of Viggo Mortensen. They'd actually hired and shot scenes with Stuart Townsend before deciding he was too young. However, it's pretty well known that Sean Connery was offered--and turned down--the part of Gandalf. He's talked about it in interviews. He turned it down because he didn't understand it. He's since seen the movies and says he still didn't understand it. Well, either the old boy's pretty dense, or he means it somehow differently than how I'm understanding him. Also, it's generally believed that Aragorn was offered to Daniel Day Lewis, who would have been utter perfection. I mean, Viggo was great, but DDL is just absolutely commanding. I read an interview w/DDL where he's asked about why he's turned down the parts he has, mention Aragorn among others. He didn't specifically comment on Aragorn, but neither did he deny that he'd been offered the part.

While we're trying to recast Bilbo, why not cast some of the parts that weren't in LOTR, such as Thorin, Bard the Bowman, and Beorn? (I imagine Beorn will be a no-show, just as Tom Bombadil was--he's not essential to furthering the story.)

Oooo, casting Thorin. Thats a tough one.

You know, I think the reason that PJ chose actors that we hadn't heard of was because they were great actors without all of the hollywood and stars and garbage surrounding them. This was before the movies. You can pick from the "stars" but there are much better or similar actors whom could just as easily fill these parts.

Richard Dean Anderson, hes not even doing Stargate-SG1 anymore, I think his acting career is over sadly. He was great as McGyver and even better as Colonel O'neil. Michael Shanks, hmm... I don't think he could be Bilbo, I don't think I could bare to Dr. Jackson as Bilbo lol. How about Christopher Judge (joking)

Its best to have some unknown actor who has an extrodinary amount of talent, but hasn't hit the big screen yet.

And by Mr. Bean, do you mean Sean Bean? The guy who played Boromir?

I read a new interview w/Ian McKellen, dealing primarily with the upcoming X Men and Da Vinci Code movies (wow, 2 blockbusters at once--Sir Ian is the new "it" boy). He mostly talks about those movies, but of course the interviewer asks him if he'd like to play Gandalf again, when/if the Hobbit gets made. He said yes, definitely, in part because he'd hate to see anyone else play him!

Here's a little article, from DavisDVD.com, that undoubtedly adds yet another layer of complexity to the rights issues for The Hobbit:

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer has announced that it is ending video and DVD distribution pacts with Sony Pictures Entertainment and moving its domestic home video distribution business to 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment.

MGM was acquired last year by a Sony-led consortium of investors for roughly $5 billion. As a result, Sony ended up with a 20% interest in the studio and a distribution deal for its vast library of 4,000 movie titles and 10,000 TV episodes.

But since then, investors have had second thoughts about unraveling the MGM organization. In March, MGM announced that it was getting back into movie production/distribution, and now, with the its attention focused on video division, the Lion has decided to consolidate their home entertainment releases with a single distributor (20th Century Fox already distributes MGM Home Entertainment product internationally) and reestablishing its TV distribution in-house.

MGM and Fox will continue supporting Sony's Blu-ray Disc, which is in a battle for next-generation DVD supremacy with Toshiba's HD DVD, by releasing titles in the new hi-def format. The shift, however, will cost Sony control over the timing and pricing of MGM catalog releases.

Don't hold your breath on this, but I'm going to go ahead and post it, for whatever it's worth. This is from theonering.net:

The BIG news has finally hit. A Ringer Spy who was recently in the New York offices of New Line Cinema has reported that they clearly saw 'The Hobbit' on the film schedule for 2007. Here's what the spy had to say:"Please leave my email anonymous as I have some very exciting news to report. I was in New Line's NY offices to discuss upcoming projects when I clearly saw something very intriguing on a year planner. 'The Hobbit' was clearly marked on what looked like July 2007. I couldn't exactly take a moment to investigate the calendar with my audience in the room, but it definitely said 'The Hobbit'. Lets hope this is a PJ project!"
Even if the report is legitimate, it could still indicate no more than wishful thinking on New Line's part. In fact, I'd have to say that either it's NOT true, OR it won't be PJ's. He's said repeatedly that his next project was "The Lovely Bones," and that would be after taking a year off after Kong. That would have him starting on TLB in early 2007, and although it probably isn't LOTResgue in terms of logistics, it would still tie him up for months, which would make a Hobbit production from him unlikely to arrive in 2007.

I'm with you on this one. Though the project might be possible, I definitely don't think PJ is involved if it is. I don't know about Lovely Bones, but he has just confirmed that he will be producing a remake of the Dam Busters, a project which begins next year. Add the Halo production to that, and PJ is going to be one busy guy for some time to come.

More from theonering.net:

A Ringer Spy with connections to WETA recently passed along a message suggesting that the Hobbit notation previously reported as appearing on a New Line Cinema schedule, might in fact be related to New Line's involvement in EA Games' "The White Council" RPG for XBox. We're not sure why NL would use the title "The Hobbit" to indicate a game with different subject matter, but we're continuing to check with our spies as information comes in!

x 234765323423

Well, the onering.net just posted this:

Over the next few years, MGM is planning to release half a dozen films, some in the $150 million to $200 million-plus range. Studio is ready to unveil such high-profile projects as "Terminator 4"; one or two installments of "The Hobbit," which Sloan hopes will be directed by Peter Jackson; and a sequel to "The Thomas Crown Affair" with Pierce Brosnan.

It has already announced a "Pink Panther" sequel and the next 007 pic "Bond 22," due out in November 2008. "Rocky Balboa" unspools in February.

The pics are all franchises that MGM owns the rights to through its 4,000-title library. The goal is to release two or three tentpoles a year, all of which will be made with financial partners, including Wall Street money or other studios.

Since New Line owns the rights to MAKE The Hobbit, and MGM only to distribute it, it sounds like MGM/Sony will be of a mind to cut a deal. Also, and this is off-topic, but if in "a few years," they plan to do T4, it sounds like they anticipate the Governator being out of office by them. A likely occurrence, from what I've heard....

Intriguing news. I wonder why two installments of The Hobbit are mentioned. As much as I would love to see a lot of attention lavished upon this project, I don't think the short length of the novel lends itself to two feature films. If PJ is in charge, I'm sure he can manage a very complete story within a single three-hour movie. While two movies might satisfy those who want every single scene to be in the movie, I don't exactly relish the prospect of waiting a whole year before part two comes out. Enough waiting's been done.

Good Lord, I totally overlooked that installment business. If they do that, it's solely for one reason—to milk the last drop of blood from this franchise. Since no other film rights are available, The Hobbit is the last movie they can make. How crass to consider splitting it into two for purely sequel reasons. "Kill Bilbo, Vol I and II," anyone?

I know... the very prospect of it sickens me. Just do one movie and be done with it. Longer books have been adapted into one film and were sucessful. Not like the Hobbit is overly complex on the plot anyway.

Perhaps we can hope that the person who made the one or two installments comment is not familiar w/The Hobbit and assumed it to be long and complex like LOTR, and thereby possibly needing to be done in two parts.

And perhaps pigs shall fly....

Just for fun and the sake of argument, anyone care to take a stab at what might be tolerable to be cut from a movie version? Of course, everyone's opinion might differ on what is important, but I would like to see what people think. It's been a while since I read the book, but I'll see what I can come up with:

- though I think it is funny in the book that all the dwarves arrive at Bilbo's door at different times (much to his discomfiture,) this could seem overly long in a movie as well as tiresome. I think the dwarves should arrive all at once, or possibly in two or three groups at most.

- the interactions and tea party at Bilbo's place can also be trimmed considerably for time.

- as much as I thought the Stone Giants hurling rocks at one another in the High Pass were cool, they have become somewhat of an oddity in Tolkien lore and canon. Since they don't really contribute anything to the story and represent yet another e xp ensive CG shot, I think they should be left out.

- some of the bits in the Goblin tunnels can be tightened up a bit for time.

- the rescue of the company by the eagles is a tough one for me. While I love the scene and think it should actually be left in, I fear that many of the less-enlightened viewers may cry foul or draw too many comparisons with the eagle rescue in ROTK. I can just hear the cries of 'ripoff' or 'been done already.' It may sound simple to you and I, but it takes Tolkien fans to understand the chronology at work here, as well as the implications and nuances of what Tolkien wrote. The average person will only see a plot-device being used again. What do you guys think should be done? Perhaps leaving out the warg attack altogether is the solution, as some may find the sight of Gandalf and the dwarves fearfully climbing up some trees to escape a little too much out of character?

- the dancing and feasting elves that the company glimpses several times in Mirkwood should probably be cut. Why? Though we know wood elves are somewhat different in culture and outlook than most of the other elves we saw in the LOTR movies, their behaviour in the book at this stage may appear too frivolous and silly to the viewer and not in keeping with what PJ showed us of elves in general. Though I know what Tolkien was trying to do, I don't think many can accept the thought of Legolas and his woodland friends vanishing into the dark at the first sight of some dwarves stomping into their camp. Again, what do people feel about this?

- the butler of the Wood Elf King. Again, though I really liked this character, he is hardly believable as the literary and cinematic elves we have come to know. Perhaps the butler should stay in, but be given a more dignified persona and role?

- the e xp loration of the Lonely Mountain for the secret door should be shortened considerably for time. I don't mean cut altogether, because I would still like to see the interaction with the thrushes and ravens of Erebor, but the search is a wee bit long in the book.

- Bilbo's discovery and theft of the Arkenstone. Again, though I like this part, it is not integral to the plot and could cost valuable screentime for other things. The presence of the treasure hoard alone is more than sufficient to establish Thorin's and the dwarves' greed. However, if the Arkenstone is left out, we will be robbed of the touching scene near the end when Bilbo gives the stone back to a dying and remorseful Thorin.

- though it is already glossed over in the book as is, the trip back home should be left as a narrative voiceover, with perhaps a scene at the end showing Bilbo arriving at Bag End with his pony ladden with treasure.


On the reverse side of the coin, here are some things that should absolutely be left in the movie (at least in my opinion.) I won't mention obvious and necessary plot points, but merely things that I truly want to see:

- the Stone Trolls. This is one is going to pose a challenge because Tom, William, and Bert Huggins are depicted as being smarter than your average troll as seen in the LOTR movies, not to mention the fact that they can actually speak. Ironically enough, it is their stupidity that gets them killed in the book, but compared to the cave troll in Moria, these guys were rocket scientists. I honestly feel that if this scene is fundamentally altered in any way, it will be ruined, but how then do we get around these odd trolls?

- the discovery of Sting, Glamdring, and Orcrist in the troll hoard. Please, don't leave this out and simply ignore it like the Barrow blades were ignored in LOTR. The origin of these iconic swords should be shown and e xp lained.

- this is more of a casting preference than anything else, but I would love to see Hugo Weaving reprise his role in what will admittedly be a small cameo as Elrond. The reading of the moon-runes on Thror's map by Elrond is a must.

- the riddle game between Bilbo and Gollum. A more frugal director might be inclined to cut this out for time and reduce the interaction between these two characters to a couple of lines of dialogue, but that would be a tremendous disservice to one of the most famous and memorable moments in all of Tolkien's writings. The riddle game must stay.

- Beorn. I love this guy. He has to stay. Both in meeting the company and giving them lodging, as well as his crucial role at the Battle of the Five Armies. Long live Beorn!

- the spiders of Mirkwood. Though these definitely shouldn't be able to talk (I think they do in the book,) I think they should be left in to add to the menace of the dark wood, and to make the connection between Bilbo's fight and Sam's use of it against Shelob much later.

- Carc and Roac. Again, a bit of an issue with talking animals, but perhaps they can come up with a believable way to have the dwarves or Bilbo communicate with these birds. This is such cool and important part of the book that it has to stay in some fashion.

- though I hope it does not turn out like some cheesefest in the style of Dragonheart, they have to have Bilbo talking to Smaug. This bit of dialogue is very interesting and important, and Smaug's cunning, intelligence, and malice needs a vocal e xp ression. To turn him into a dumb brutish creature would be terribly disappointing.

- all five factions should be shown at the Battle of the Five Armies, else it would be the Battle of the Three or Four Armies. Silly, no? So let's be sure the Elves are there, as well as Dain's Ironhills Dwarves, the Men of Lake Town, the Goblins (with the bat clouds,) and the Wargs. Lastly, gotta have Beorn and the Eagles show up at the end.



As you can probaly determine for yourself as well as from my comments, many of the inherent problems in bringing this book to the screen lie with two factors: that it is very childish in tone and approach, and that PJ's movies have set a heavy precendent for what people are going to e xp ect. Some aspects of a possible Hobbit movie will have to made much more serious in order to maintain consistency, continuity, and to not alienate older viewers. All in all though, I think it is quite doable, and I can't wait until the rumour mill begins to grind for real. I miss those days from the LOTR craze.

from theonering.net:

'The Hobbit' Petition: MGM Speaks!
Xoanon @ 8:58 pm EST

No comments on the foregoing? I thought it was a pretty encouraging development.

It is definately something in the right direction, thats for sure. I think we'll still need some more proof and words from both MGM, New Line, and Peter himself. Ultimately it is up to Peter and not necessarily up to his representatives. Talking is good!

I'm with Thorin on this one. Until the man himself speaks up and not only confirms this, but also acknowledges that he will undertake the project, I will reserve judgment and excitement.

I should add, having read his interview on AICN recently (whose link was unfortunately erased from this thread,) that I am little concerned with some comments PJ made about this movie, namely e xp anding upon a few things that Tolkien himself only mentioned in passing in the book. Looming most largely were his comments about bringing in a lot of characters from LOTR, and delving in depth into Gandalf's doings for the White Council and their subsquent attack upon Dol Guldur, which takes place just after Gandalf leaves Bilbo and the dwarves at the entrance to Mirkwood. I don't know how others feel about this, but to me it represents a major deviation and diversion from the main plot of the book/movie. It really adds nothing to the main quest and story, other than showing what Gandalf was up to. If this is just a gratuitous way for PJ to squeeze in more action and guest stars, then I can live without it. Even if he is given leeway to turn this into two movies instead of one, I am still very wary of this idea. I wouldn't mind a Legolas cameo, and the obvious Elrond one, but to squeeze in Saruman, Galadriel, and Aragorn, as he suggested, would be a radical departure from the tone and scope of The Hobbit. It's a simple tale, so please don't overindulge yourself PJ. Maybe he can shoot the scenes and save them for an Extended Edition DVD?

Just my two cents.

Yes, I read the interview and a few doubts were running through my mind. PJ better not try to overdo it. One 3 hour movie is sufficient enough to cover the whole story, he definately doesn't need to add in ridiculous inconsequencial LOTR cameos. The only ones necessary are Elrond and Gandalf.

Agreed.

On the same note, here's another thing that concerns me: there isn't one single female character in the book, not even as secondary character, that I can recall. Personally, I think this is perfectly ok and that the story works well as is, without the need for trying to be overly politically-correct or accused of being chauvinistic or something silly like that. However, due to the day and age that we live in, and given the debacle that we saw with Arwen's enlarged role in LOTR as a result of 'what audiences of today want to see,' I'm half e xp ecting some ridiculous change to be made by Phillipa Boyens and Fran Walsh, such as changing the gender of some of the dwarves, or turning Bard the Bowman into Barda the Bowwoman. Please, let it not be so.

I don't see how they could change a major character like one of the dwarves or Bard. I also do see you're point where there are no female characters either. I don't think it would be seen as a major problem seeing as it is a very well known book. I knew of the Hobbit before I ever heard about the LoTR. The only reasonable answer I can give you is to add some characters into the story that do not play a significant role and act mainly as extras. For example... at the meeting with Elrond, have several female elves... possibly Arwen floating around. It still doesn't really give a major female role... who knows.

While weaving in plot elements like the White Council's ouster of Sauron from Dol Guldur, Gandalf conniving to send the Dwarves on the quest, and so forth, is outside the scope of the Hobbit, I don't necessarily oppose it. Nor do I oppose character cameos. For that matter, I doubt character cameos are too likely to happen, because the stars might not want to appear just for one scene as window dressing. Can you imagine Orlando Bloom agreeing to appear as Legolas just for the Elves partying in Mirkwood scene? Especially after he was just named "Hottest Upcoming Male Actor" by the Movie.com poll, I doubt he wants to waste time for something like that.

Anyway, while bringing in the background stuff would be outside the scope of the book, I don't think PJ would do it just to make a few more bucks. He knows people will turn out to see this movie anyway. The jist I got from that interview, if I remember it correctly, is that he would see the e xp ansion of the story as a way to move it closer in tone and scope to LOTR, which is something I suspect a lot of people will e xp ect—people who haven't read the book, and people who have read it but have reservations about staying true to its spirit as a sort of silly kids' book.

I hadn't thought about the no female characters angle on this one. There are no female characters in the book at all, so e xp anding one of them, as PJ did for Arwen, isn't a possibility. If they feel the need to include a female character, I would much prefer the appearance of Arwen and Galadriel over a gender reassignment procedure for one of the existing male characters. This leads us back to bringing in the White Council backstory....

I don't doubt that PJ will give the Hobbit that LOTR'ish touch that so many fans have come to love, but he doesn't need to start veering away from the main plot to do so. He should just cut out some of the more childish scenes, such as Beorn's animal servants. I mean, how would the appearance of Aragorn have any relevance to the story at all? I can see Arwen and Legolas, maybe even Gimli, but that's pushing it. If any LOTR stars are going to pop up in the Hobbit, it has to be relevant to the story...

I heartily agree with Grey Pilgrim on this. While the cameos are indeed unlikely to happen for the reasons mentioned, I don't think anyone here can deny that PJ has a vigorous tendency to e xp and and overly draw out things that are not really necessary to the heart of a story. The inclusion of the White Council scenes are not necessary to establish a link between this story and the LOTR movies. The current LOTR trilogy is already seeded with numerous references to The Hobbit, and simply eliminating the childish tone of the book will be more than enough to give it a more serious tone and bring it up to the level of LOTR. The mere fact that PJ would be involved would ensure uniformity of consistency and continuity, and should be quite adequate in producing a work that is clearly related to its predecessors. If some people are e xp ecting a silly kid's movie, then the inclusion of added scenes isn't going to change their preconceived notions: they will either go see the movie, or not. I think word of mouth alone and faith in PJ's previous work would ensure this movie is a success from the start, extra scenes or lack thereof notwithstanding. Since that's the likely case, I'd rather do without as I really do feel they have little to nothing to do with the main story.

As for the female thing, I guess they would have to bring in some background characters just to show that this is not a completely male-centric movie. With Hobbiton, Rivendell, the Woodland Realm, and Lake-Town in the mix, it would be pretty silly not to show some females. Perhaps they can even add a minor speaking part during Smaug's attack, kinda like they did with the Morwen character in Rohan for LOTR.

Follow this link to a video clip interview with Andy Serkis. In it, he talks mainly about his work in Flushed Away, but also responds to the question of whether MGM has approached him to reprise his role as Gollum for The Hobbit.

http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=co ... &Itemid=28

That would have been SO much more enjoyable w/o that utterly obnoxious totally annoying flashing ad banner along the side. Lord, those things should be illegal. After a minute or so, it dawned on me I could minimize the window and not have to see it, yet still hear the interview.

What ad banner?!?

There's one much further down from the video clip area, to the right of the screen, but it is far below it, and just shows some photos scrolling. Mind you, my monitor is a widescreen, so perhaps that changes something?

Anyhow, good to know Andy is very interested in reprising his role.

It was on the right side, and very long (stretching down the side of the screen). I just have a conventional aspect ratio monitor.

Yes, I can't imagine there's anybody who wouldn't want to reprise their role. Hopefully they won't be money-greedy about it tho.

Has anyone given thought to how this movie will be marketed (if and when it comes out?)

Unless PJ and New Line have a hand in the making of the movie, can the advertising blurbs say stuff like 'The adventure that started it all,' or 'Before the Lord of the Rings, there was The Hobbit'? On the surface either statement seems natural enough, but given that this is a movie ad and not a book ad, people will immediately make the connection in their minds to the LOTR movie trilogy, so if is done by different people altogether how will they, or can they, even refer to the previous movies?

It will be interesting to see how this develops. Whom ever ends up making it, I hope it is made clear enough from the get go that this is a PREQUEL to Jackon's films. It may seem like a no-brainer to you and I and anyone familiar with the books, but we have to remember there are hordes of clued-out people out there who will walk in to see this movie and the first words out of their mouths will be: "Huh? Didn't Gandalf get on a boat and sail away?" or "What the...? I thought Gollum died?!?!"

I'll never forget one time when I was watching Fellowship in the theatre one day, and as the final credits rolled up, a couple of people in the row in front of me said very loudly (and very sincerely): "What? That's it? It just ends like that?"

Good thing someone next to them was kind enough to e xp lain this was a trilogy.

I'm sure they will come up with something creative to market the movie. Perhaps something like the one you suggested... 'Before the Lord of the Rings, there was The Hobbit!' I think that would do fine. Anyone with half a brain could figure out that the Hobbit came before the LoTRs.

Thorin wrote:Anyone with half a brain could figure out that the Hobbit came before the LoTRs.

Yes but there are plenty of people out there with not even half a brain. That e xp lains why we have so many crappy movies.

gnomelord0 wrote:lol, snakes on a plane.

I don't know, I never saw that one, but from what I've heard, it might be worth it if only to see Samuel Jackson say "What are all these &^%$%#@ snakes doin' on this @#&*&@#@*^ plane!"