Ok, this seems to be a big(ish) issue, and i want to know what you think about it...
Legolas is son of Thandruil (sorry for spelling) and wasn't really created until the LOTR, but even the most unknowledgeable LOTR fans will know that "hey he's from Mirkwood, why isn't he there?" Taking that into consideraton, do you think Jackson and Del Torro added him? not cuz of ORlando... but because of the character?
Personally, I think it would be interesting, a bit of a connection to LOTR. What do you think?

Personally, it wouldn't bother me to see Orlando as Legolas again (I think it was Orlando's best film role so far). But it probably wouldn't be a very substantial part unless they weave him into the White Council vs Sauron storyline. As that storyline is likely to be in the two part film, it really does provide an opportunity to give Legolas and Aragorn substantive parts without altering the story significantly, which I would enjoy very much.

GB

I really don't want to see Orlando again. That is why I'm mainly against the idea. In my opinion, Bloom isn't all that great an actor, and I agree with GB about LOTR being his best film. But LOTR was really his first big film. So he was young and inexperienced, and yet he thought he was awesome. I don't know if he has changed at all, but the thought of Bloom being Legolas again just makes me cringe.
Legolas was a great character, and the movie really dumbed him down. I understand that they had to do that, since they cannot correctly develop 20 characters. But his role was reduced to stating the obvious, offering help sometimes, and kicking ass.

But, other than my thoughts on Bloom, I am ok with the idea of the CHARACTER being in the film, but not too much. We don't want him to be too involved with the high matters of the world. He never really did that stuff until LOTR. But I guess I wouldn't mind seeing him in Mirkwood somewhere.

I think Legolas provides an excellent Cameo apperance. A little nod for fans who are paying attention. Past that, no.
There are more than enough major players in the primary Hobbit Storyline. And for the White Council line? I think Gandalf, Saruman, Galadriel, Elrond, Cirdan, and any other key players I missed will be more than enough to fill that sorty line. Devoting the time and energy to develop Legolas more will either wreck the story, or wreck the character. Neither of which I want to happen.

I think the biggest difficulty in getting Legolas in the movie is that Pirates 4 is slated for filming starting at the same time, and Bloom can't be in two places at the same time. Sure, he could fly down to New Zealand for a scene or two in a cameo, but he's supposed to be part of the main storyline of the second film - the hunting of Gollum; he remembers watching over Gollum during his tenure in Thranduil's cells.

If they film them how they did last time - mixed up, out of order, both films at once, Bloom is going to have trouble acting in both The Hobbit and in Pirates.

Now that I think about it I don't think I'd mind Aragorn and Legolas so much in the second film, atleast not if they were part of the Hunt for Gollum like you said Marandahir.
I guess my main problem is just not having characters pushed into scenes and quests they have no business being in.

I really agree with Beren btw I can't stand Bloom in the LotR, he spoils a great character in the LotR films. His acting is too obviosly exaggerated and it feels really wooden. He says very little and when he does he tries to be overly clever. I kinda like the rivalry that is created between Gimli and Legolas in the LotR but it also refracts from Legolas' true character. He is depicted as a sort of simple-minded, silent type in the films and he always has something to say about Gimli's failure which really annoys me. I don't really think he should feature in the Hobbit but a short clip, (like many of the people on this subject have commented the outcome should be) would be fine maybe just for continuety purposes, bit like an easteregg effect in Tv series'. Aragorn maybe should feature in the film aswell, at Rivendell, but would that also mean Arwen might have to feature?

I'm not 100% sure where Arwen was when the Hobbit was taking place. Here are the dates:
Hobbit: 2941-2942
Aragorn's 1st meeting with Arwen: 2951
Aragorn's 2nd meeting with Arwen: 2980

In Aragorn's first meeting with Arwen, he marvels that, although he grew up in Elrond's house, he has never seen Elrond's daughter before. Arwen explains this by telling him that she has spent many years with her "mother's folk" in Lorien, and has only "lately returned to visit [her] father again." The word "lately" is what everything hangs on. If she met Bilbo when he came through, then she had to have been in Rivendell at least 10 years when she met with Aragorn. Personally, I find it hard to believe that even an elf would call 10 years ago "lately," and even harder to believe that Aragorn and Arwen would have lived at the same place for 10 years and would not have seen each other.
So, based on this, I do not think we should see Arwen in the Hobbit.

I agree with you Beren, but they found a way to have a lasting relationship during the LOTR, so they could do it again in the Hobbit, just for a bit more of a backstory... but i don't think they really need it. And i agree with most of you,that Legolas should be a camio. Just to please Orlando and Legolas fans (like myself) alike

If Legolas has a cameo, he definately should be second fiddle to Thranduil. Maybe standing at his side, offering advice what to do with these captured dwarves, or something like that