Viggo Mortensen Talks The Hobbit
Published on: 3rd February, 2009
Viggo Mortensen Talks The Hobbit | Related News
The good folk at TotalFilm have a revealing interview with Viggo Mortensen in this months magazine where he tells them he’d rather finish what he started than have someone else take over the role of Aragorn although shouldn’t that be start what you finished?
Which ever it is he says he’d want to make sure it was going to be done in ‘the spirit of Tolkien’ before commiting himself. He felt the last 2 movies of the trilogy may have lost that spirit when they concentrated more on the hero’s than the relationships between secondary characters.
“I’d have allowed the secondary characters to speak more and not be so focused on the heroes. There was more balance in the way that all the races of Middle Earth were presented in the first one. It was more about the relationships… That’s just my personal taste.”
On the appointment of Del Toro for The Hobbit movie he says:
“He’s strong minded, intelligent and probably just as stubborn [as Jackson]. I don’t know if it’ll be as big a circus [as The Lord of the Rings] in terms of several people writing changes at the last minute. Maybe it’ll [The Hobbit] be more streamlined and efficient, but to some degree it’ll probably be as bewildering a set up as the other three.”
Check out the latest edition of TotalFilm out now for the full in depth interview with Viggo.
Click Here To Share This Hobbit News On Your Facebook Wall And Help Spread The Word
Readers Comments
Get Hobbit Movie Updates
LOTR Memorabilia
Recent Hobbit Movie News
- Brian Cox To Play Thorin?
- Hobbit Movie Update
- John Rhys-Davies Says No To The Hobbit Movie
- Gandalf The Grey
- Tolkien Estate and New Line Settlement Leaves Way Clear For The Hobbit Movies
- Sir Ian McKellen Says Bilbo Role Is Taken
- The Hobbit, Wizards and Rumors
- Peter Jackson On The Hobbit Movie Progress
- David Tennant Tipped For Bilbo Baggins Role
- Del Toro Feels No Hobbit Movie Pressure
Latest Hobbit Forum Chat
- Reply on "Eragon Movie" by Eldorion on November 20, 2009 at 2:46 pm in Other Fantasy Stories
- Reply on "Eragon Movie" by Gandalfs Beard on November 20, 2009 at 5:41 am in Other Fantasy Stories
- Reply on "HOBBIT SONGS" by Odo Banks on November 20, 2009 at 5:27 am in The Hobbit Movies
- Reply on "JACK VANCE" by Odo Banks on November 20, 2009 at 5:19 am in Other Fantasy Stories
- Reply on "Eragon Movie" by Eldorion on November 19, 2009 at 6:55 pm in Other Fantasy Stories
I’m not sure that I agree with Viggo’s point. Perhaps that maybe the case in the theatrical releases, but the films could only be so long without losing focus on the story. All in all P. Jackson did a brilliant job balancing all the characters and relationships. I’m really not sure what Viggo is getting at, and I hope it doesn’t get in the way of him reprising his role.
[Reply]
It struck me as a strange thing to bring up now. I don’t recall him saying anything like it at the time.
Maybe he considers himself more ‘wordly’ now and in a position that allows him a certain amount of leeway.
[Reply]
Yes, my same thoughts exactly. I didn’t notice it in the theatrical releases, or atleast it wasn’t noticeable. Besides, the theatrical release were for a wider audience, fans of Tolkien would have gotten the extended cuts, which is really brilliant in my opinion.
[Reply]
I think that it would be very disappointing if someone else played Aragorn. Viggo established himself as the role in 3 massive movies, it just wouldn’t be the same to have another actor.
[Reply]
I had the same thoughts as Viggo when I was watching the last two. Having read the trilogy at least seven times, I had an opinion of how things should go to stay true to Tolkien’s work and the first movie was the closest. The second two really harped on the heroes and left out many characters that were fully developed in the books. Although I do agree with this thread that the movies could only be so long. It’s always that way when you bring a book to film.
[Reply]
I’m going to very disappointed if I see ANYONE playing Aragorn in the Hobbit. I hope it’s the mysterious in between movie that we’re talking about here.
They better not shoe horn in any characters that don’t belong.
[Reply]
I agree with Viggo, in which some of the wonderful secondary characters were kept way, way, in the background, even in the extended versions. For me, the characters of Aomer and Aowyn were worth the time to explore. I was so disappointed that the scene where Faramir and Aowyn meet at the infirmary was cut off the theatrical version… one of the most beautiful love scenes I have ever seen. How about when Aomer found Aowyn strewn on the battlefield? His scream and rush to her gave me one of the two goosebumps of ROTK… the other was when Frodo said, “it’s gone, it’s done.”
It cannot see how the movie honchos will introduce Aragorn in the second Hobbit movie. When Aragorn met the four hobbits at the Prancing Pony (FOTR) he was unknown to them, and to the audience. We had no idea who the mysterious dude “on dah cornah” was, and it was fascinating getting to know the dashing know-it-all-do-it-all stranger through the three movies.
One last thought, any movie which includes Viggo, Orlando, or Karl (Urban) is worth watching.
[Reply]
Hmmm “the spirit of Tolkien” - my sentiments (and other “purist’s”) exactly. I wonder if the “Tolkien Estate” (or for that matter Tolkien himself would have) felt the same way? It appears now that even one of “Jackson’s” major actors for his LOTR films wasn’t “quite happy” with the way “Jackson” filmed at least two of the three films. I wonder if any of the other actors that were involved with the project felt the same way - would they dare to be as “open” about this as Viggo was? There are a “huge” amount of directors in the world (both known and unknown) who’s thoughts on how they may have filmed the LOTR films - would have been interesting to be privy to - given the same resources that “Jackson” had. Yes the trilogy by “Jackson” won awards but was this realistically only due to the trilogy’s financial success? With this in mind, regardless of who directed the trilogy (which would have been absolute masterpieces if done closer to the books) the subject covered by the films and it’s huge world wide following (prior to the films) would have led to it’s ultimate success anyway.
Hopefully with The Hobbit Del Torro keeps the “Tolkien purist’s” happy (or even maybe “ecstatic”) this time as well as entertain any new people (including readers) that will be exposed to Tolkien’s world for the first time - regardless of “Jackson and Co’s” involvement again. At least these “new” people (possibly brought about also by way of having seen the LOTR trilogy films) will go to see The Hobbit film(s) and enjoy them again whilst the “purists” unfortunately might have to go to see it (them) and maybe not quite enjoy it (them) again to the same degree.
[Reply]
Aragorn IS NOT A CHARACTER in The Hobbit.
If they put him in it will be an utter disgrace !!!
The only ones who should be in it are Bilbo, Gandalf, Elrond, & Gollum.
No Galadriel, no Frodo, Sam, Merry or Pippin, No Aragorn, Legolas or Gimli.
These movies should depict The Hobbit, not a Lord of the Rings prequel.
I will be majorly annoyed if any of the above mentioned LOTR character that are not in The Hobbit are included.
It would be an absolute TRAVESTY.
[Reply]
Aragorn and all the other hobbits besides Bilbo are not characters in The Hobbit. You’d think that Viggo would have at least READ the novel. That he would even suggest Aragorn “return” for the making of The Hobbit is an insult to Tolkien’s memory!!!
[Reply]
I agree with Cameron and TolkienFan. If they were to throw Aragorn into the mix, it would be wrong. At the time, he would have been very young(10 or so) so obviously Viggo wouldn’t be right for the part. Legolas could realistically make an appearance in Mirkwood, but maybe a brief cameo. They could cut to a scene of the White counsel, and that would be interesting to see. It would be good to see Christopher Lee in there. Especially since his role was skewered in the last movie… and of course seeing Cate Blanchett again is always a bonus. None of the young hobbits. More dwarves, eagles and a certain dragon. Now a question, Beorn or no Beorn? Big bumble bee’s and upright walking dogs I just don’t know about that…. Thanks for letting me say my peice.!
[Reply]
the hobbit will be brill!
[Reply]
Cameron, I just started reading The Fellowship of the Ring and Gandalf talks about going with Aragorn prior to the Fellowship events to hunt down Gollum. Is it possible they’ll portray those events in The Hobbit movies?
[Reply]
I am just watching extended TTT, and in one of the scenes Aragon says he is 87 years old. So, if they bring him back on TH-2, that is possible. You also need to remember, he knew about Frodo at ‘Pranching Pony’, how?
[Reply]
On TTT-XE Aragorn says he is 87. Don’t you love that scene?
Now, Aragorn DID know about the ring when he met the hobbits at the PP. So, Gandalf and he had discussed the ring before Gandalf went to seek “counsel” from Saruman.
My trouble is with Gandalf knowing of the ring before he went to The Shire for Bilbo’s party. He appeared not to know about it, and after suspecting the ring was Sauron’s ring, he rode many miles to research Isildur’s account at the library.
So, he didn’t know?
Anyway, Bilbo kept the ring for 60 years.
In The Hobbit Bilbo tricks Gollum into guiding him out of the cave after finding the ring, and Gollum realizes immediately afterwards that Bilbo had the ring. So… why did it take Gollum 60 years to go after Bilbo and the ring?
This could be explained on the sequel to The Hobbit.
[Reply]
Personally I always thought that Viggo and Sean Bean should have been cast in opposite roles. Sean strikes me as more Arragorn like. As to Viggo’s comments I feel it should be pointed out that before being cast he hadn’t even read the books. I don’t think he has the personal history with the books to criticize Peter Jackson’s vision. There are a lot of deviations in the film but they are addressed and rationalized in the making of extras. It is nigh miraculous that the films got made at all, let alone being very good. Lastly, I agree that only the characters from the Hobbit should be in the film. A cameo by Viggo would be kind of gimicky, unless he were to walk by in the background of the Rivendell segment. Maybe having Legolas play a minor role in the Mirkwood segment would work. Anyway, I’m glad they’re doing it and I think Peter and Guillermo will make a great team.
[Reply]
P.s. Frodo’s quest takes place nearly eighty years after Bilbo finds the Ring, so that rules out Viggo even for a cameo. As to why it took Gollum so long to go after the ring you have to remember that he was in the caverns of the Misty mountains for hundreds of years. He was terrified of the outside world. Furthermore, for all those years the only interaction he had with others was to strangle them and eat them. He wasn’t the most sociable creature.
[Reply]
The only cameos that would be true to the book would be if Legolas was standing with his father, King Thrandruil of Mirkwood and if you saw an adolescent Aragorn wandering through Rivendell. Gandalf knew about Bilbo’s ring in The Hobbit but didn’t realize that it might be the One ring until Bilbo’s outburst after his going-away party. I really don’t think that many of the actors had read the novels before being cast in the roles, the only one who seemed to was Ian McKellan. In the extras he talks about giving Sean Austin (awesome acting btw!) a suggestion to grab Frodo’s arm once he is healed in Rivendell. I’m insulted that Mortensen had the gall to criticize the movies at all, especially since he was Jackson’s second choice for Aragorn, I don’t remember who was the first choice.
[Reply]
It would be my preference to see only the characters as per the original book.
I’m a big LOTR fan, of the books and the movies.
I have enjoyed the movies very much, but have been dissapointed in several areas with Jackson’s interpretation’s.
1. No Tom Bombadil? What’s up with that?
This was an excellent chapter.
2. No Glorfindel, and the Elfstone scene missing.
3. The attack of the wolves on the fellowship in Hollin missing.
4. Elrond travelling to Rohan to deliver the sword to Aragorn didn’t fit for me.
5. The part with the Rangers and the sons of Elrond missing.
6. The Witch King breaking Gandalf’s staff was out of context.
7. Frodo’’s and Sam’s “over” long journey to the fiery mountain could of been shortened to make room for other scene’s.
There was probably plenty of other scene’s and character representations that were out of context. Different characters speaking someone else’s lines, etc……..
Hopefully someday, we’ll get an accurate movie aligned with the books.
Would be cool to see a moive on the Simiirillion
[Reply]
I know that Jackson commented that Bombadil was too easy of a way to cut time out of the movie and that’s why he didn’t do it.
I agree that Glorfindel should have been done, especially since he is the one who prophesizes that the Witch-King will not be slain by the hand of man.
The Witch-King breaking Gandalf’s staff was unecessary since he appears with it reformed later in the movie anyway.
I didn’t buy Elrond delivering the sword either.
I always thought that the only way to do justice to the books in film was to do a TV series with a chapter or two per episode, especially since most of the chapters end on cliff-hangers…
[Reply]
I know that Jackson commented that Bombadil was too easy of a way to cut time out of the movie and that’s why he didn’t do it.
I agree that Glorfindel should have been done, especially since he is the one who prophesizes that the Witch-King will not be slain by the hand of man.
The breaking Gandalf’s staff was unecessary since he appears with it reformed later in the movie anyway.
I didn’t buy Elrond delivering the sword either.
I always thought that the only way to do justice to the books in film was to do a TV series with a chapter or two per episode, especially since most of the chapters end on cliff-hangers…
[Reply]
Treebeard,
I know that Jackson commented that Bombadil was too easy of a way to cut time out of the movie and that’s why he didn’t do it.
I agree that Glorfindel should have been done, especially since he is the one who prophesizes that the Witch-King will not be slain by the hand of man.
The breaking Gandalf’s staff was unecessary since he appears with it reformed later in the movie anyway.
I didn’t buy Elrond delivering the sword either.
I always thought that the only way to do justice to the books in film was to do a TV series with a chapter or two per episode, especially since most of the chapters end on cliff-hangers…
[Reply]
I believe that Jackson produced the best film version of the Lord of the Rings to date. However, my greatest disappointment with the Fellowship of the Ring was the omission of material from the two chapters “In the House of Tom Bombadil” and “Fog on the Barrow Downs”–which still gives me chills even after more than a dozen readings!
With regard to The Hobbit movie, I hope that Gandalf’s character is not so far removed from the end game–defeating Sauron–that Del Toro ignores the fact that Gandalf and Thorin Oakenshield have a “chance meeting” on the edge of spring in Bree (see LotR Appendix). What motivated Gandalf to help the 13 dwarves and to enlist Bilbo as the “lucky number” was the desire to eliminate the Worm at Erebor so that Sauron might be deprived of the use of Smaug as a weapon in the northeast.
[Reply]
Re: how much Gandalf knew about the ring. At first, no one knew because Bilbo lied. Then later Gandalf found out, but just thought it was a regular magic ring. After Bilbo’s party Gandalf began to suspect, and then went to Gondor and found out it was the One in 3017, just two years before the War of the Ring. Is that not how it goes?
[Reply]
Has anyone else realised that none of the LOTR actors seem to have actually read “The Hobbit”? I love Viggo and all but, ARAGORN ISN’T EVEN IN THE HOBBIT! His name isn’t mention, Dunedain, the race he comes from aren’t mentioned, nothing even REMOTELY to do with Aragorn is mentioned. WHY would anyone, bar Ian McKellan, Ian Holm, Hugo Weaving and Andy Serkis, reprise their role?
[Reply]
Well, not for The Hobbit movie.
But, perhaps the rest of the LOTR characters could be reprised for the mysterious second movie.
At the beginning of FOTR, it was obvious that quite a few people knew Aragorn. The elves of Rivendell, for example, including Elrond, Arwen, and the twins, and also the elves of Caras and Mirwood, including Legolas, Glofindel, and Haldir.
Gandalf, Theoden, and Theoden’s father also knew Aragorn.
So, these relationships and encounters could be depicted.
Or not.
I think that by being perfectly unknown to the audience the characters of LOTR were more intriguing and the movies were more interesting had we had a background of who each was.
[Reply]
Wouldn’t Aragorn be a child during the Hobbit? I mean, it IS a significant amount of years between it and LotR. .
[Reply]
I think the movies were done as well as anyone could have dreamed them to be. There were things missing that I wished were there, but come on, I think they did the best they possibly could have when developing the book into the movie.
As far as actors reading the books, I know that Chistopher Lee said that he reads the trilogy once a year.
I don’t think that they should bring in characters that weren’t in the Hobbit, but maybe it will make sense when we find more out about this mysterious second movie.
I’m just REALLY disappointed that Peter Jackson isn’t directing this movie.
[Reply]
Some on the other hand may say thank goodness “Jackson” isn’t directing the films. I think for the “sanity” of some Tolkien purists it’s good that somebody different is directing the Hobbit movies although “Jackson” and co are unfortunately probably going to have a big “influence” on the making of these also. The LOTR films(while it was good that they ended up being “made”) in reality might have been better if they were not especially with what “Jackson” did with them (not being made a lot more closer to the books and especially the reasons for not doing this - as presented by him in the extended versions of the films - listen to the director’s track on these). With this in mind and the feelings and comments that a lot of other people on the many other posts on this web site have posted in relation to the making of the hobbit films here’s hoping that Del Torro directs the films closer (at least a bit more closer than what “Jackson” did with the LOTR)to the Hobbit book.
[Reply]
It seems that everyone’s attacking Pete, whereas others should be blamed for the fact that his movies at times deviate from the books. What can a single man do against a billion dollar industry? Wake up guys! Pete is a purist like us but got cornered and beat into submission by the bullies that run the movie industry. Money is all that matters. Those people don’t give a damn about a purist’s feelings. Sad but true. Does anyone even remember Jackson giving a battle about making 3 movies instead of 1? And please don’t get me started about Glorfindel being replaced by Arwen…Horribly wrong
[Reply]
wat is up with yis all, the movies were as good as anyone could have made them. I mean sure sum of its missin, but get over it ther like the best movies of all time, and i agree that extraneaous peopl arnt needed, but rference could be made. if u remember aragorn said that he was much older than he appeared, and also orlando bloom could appear as the elven king thranduil
[Reply]
“Jackson” a purist - sorry no - he fails miserably! Let’s list a “small” no. of “changes” he made in his films from the books to support this.
It wasn’t the “industry” that:
1.paid homage to Ray Harryhausen by showing the “extended” vision of the troll in Moria (should have only really been the foot of the troll) and/or for that matter the “watcher in the water” (should have only been the tentacle of the watcher) - could have used the Balrog or maybe even Shelob to satisfy his “homage”.
2. made the “refugees” go from Edoras to Helm’s Deep - they should have gone to Dunharrow (Dunharrow was shown in the film(s) anyway)
3. required “the big build up of the fight” at Helm’s deep - this was not required as it was not even the “major battle” in the LOTR - a much bigger “build up” than what was shown for the battle on the Pelennor Fields would have been better - if in fact it was required at all.
4.had Elves at Helm’s deep (to “re-enforced” the bond between man and elves - should have been done at the Pelennor fields battle instead (though again incorrectly - but might have been more “acceptable” to purists).
5. Legolas sliding down a shield at Helm’s deep and /or for that matter later “climbing” up an Oliphaunt (not really required as the scenes that these occurred in were already shot with enough “excitment”).
6. Faramir, Golum, Frodo and Sam at Osgiliath at the same time (not necessary - could have re-enforced (even more so) the “change of Faramir’s attitude towards the ring and etc” by the ring-bearer party at Henneth Annun).
7. The battle (or confrontation) between Gandalf and The Witch King - really should have been just like in the book (and would have been much more dramatic) especially if one follows the passage as it was written in the books: “In rode the Lord of the Nazgul…..You cannot enter here…..” - would also have helped eliminate the need for the “ghosts” from the Paths of the Dead to enter Gondor.
and the list goes on and on.
“No, wake up guys! Listen to the director’s commentary on the “making of” on the extended versions of the films” to see why the changes where made.
Seriously however, what “annoys” most purists ultimately (and more importantly) about “Jackson’s” version of the LOTR films is that “Jackson” was in fact given the “resources” and “scope” “by the industry” to make the films in a way that would have allowed the films to be made closer to the books - than what he did (ok yes the films were close but again they still were not “acceptably” close enough). Granted, some of the changes he made were on the whole “industry driven”(the whole Arwen “factor” - to make the film appeal to both the sexes) but instead he chose to “over use” his “creative licence” in the making of the films and he made too many “major” changes (or deviations from the books) that were not “industry” driven as shown by the few (of the many) examples above.
[Reply]
Yo i also know it a stretch, but if he wanted to play that badle in the film then he would be able to play bard, the dude that shot smaug, but thin agen, lotr fans that haddent read the hobbit might wunder wy aragorn wis playin in the movie
yo an if any o’ yis all is hatin, ive read the trilogy more than ten times the last couple years, and the hobbit even mor ther the best books out ther
[Reply]
Word now is that the two movies will be “The Hobbit.”!!!
… and just “The Hobbit.”
[Reply]
Some of you people are ridiculous. You don’t have to watch the films. If you’re that bothered, go and make your own. Think about this - despite the fact that the books are wonderful, they just can’t translate to film without changes being made. Ok, so there was no warg fight in the Two Towers, but how many normal people would be happy with a fantasy film that ran for two and half hours without any action sequences? And what does Tom Bombadil really add to a film? He gives them knives and is never seen or heard from again.
Come on, stop being so lame. I’d like to see any of you make better films.
[Reply]
HUGE mistake not having Jackson do “The Hobbit” as well. “The Hobbit” is going to be a f-ing Hollwoody blockbuster disaster, I guarantee it. If you people think you have a lot to complain about LOTR, just wait!
[Reply]
It’s great to finally see people who share my own ideas about these movies. Reading some of the other comments on this site make you think how many total dick-heads there are who feel that LOTR and The Hobbit should be completely changed and ruined and some of the characters completely omitted. Most of you guys have already said what I think so there’s no point in repetition.
As far as I’m concerned I think Del Toro could do a far better job than Jackson I’ve heard that he wants to keep the story as accurate as possible. Not sure about the two movie idea though. Even if it’s a financial disaster but a truly accurate interpretation of Tolkien’s work at least it will be appreciated by proper Tolkien fans.
Oh yes and ‘Morthane’ Tom Bombadil was added by Tolkien for mysticism in the story. He’s a character that we are left to decide about for ourselves. We are purposely left to wander about his background and origins. It’s for people with imagination. So you’re kind of out there. I guess you’d rather Peter Jackson did all the imagining for you instead.
[Reply]
…it doesn’t surprise me that Viggo hadn’t read the Hobbit (or no it’s contents), he hadn’t read LOTR either and it was his son who pushed him to take the role.
[Reply]
Wasen’t Strider in the Hobbit? And wasen’t Strider, Aragorn?
[Reply]
I don’t believe that Strider was mentioned in The Hobbit, too long since I’d read the book. And yes, Strider and Aragorn are the same character.
[Reply]
Oh, brother. I can’t believe all the nitpicky garbage spewed here. I’ve read LOTR a half-dozen times (and will again sometime), and I think PJ’s movies (the extended versions) are absolutely brilliant renditions that I still cannot believe actually got made. There are a few things that might have been done better, but then again, the major theme regarding the power of the ring was actually done BETTER in the movies than Tolkien did in the books, so give it a break for god’s sake.
[Reply]
My sentiments exactly,Mr. Sears! Though I may have to disagree with you on the subject of the Ring. And as to those of you who said that Aragorn is not a character in The Hobbit, you just aren’t LOOKING! Though Aragorn is not specifically mentioned in The Hobbit, if you look at the journals of Professor Tolkien AND at the chronology of LOTR, Bilbo would’ve had to at least seen Aragorn at Rivendell!! So, in the words of our hero Mr. Baggins “Blast and botheration” to YOU, Master Cameron! We would see a young Sam in Hobbiton, helping out his old Gaffer in Bag End’s garden and Merry and Pippin just doing some sort of mischief when Gandalf comes a-knocking at Bilbo’s door. You must remember, Hobbits age slowly, so any of the LOTR Hobbits would be fully grown by the time of The Hobbit. After all, in THE HOBBIT’s time period, Bilbo is already 58 years old! And in LOTR, Frodo’s in his late 30s when he stats his quest to destroy the Ring. Well, that’s my two cents put in, so I’ll bid you all adieu! So, Friends, Ave Atquia Valle (latin for “hail and Farewell)
[Reply]