Is it just me or does it seem alot of fans want every freekin character from LOTR in the Hobbit movie? I just dont get it, its not LOTR part 2. Its the Hobbit and most of these characters just dont need to be in it. I realize thats MY opinion but seriously what does Aragorn have to do with Bilbo getting to the dwarfs former home and helping regain their treassure? NOTHING he was like 10 years old at the time of the hobbit. Arowen could have a small cameo just cause the dwarfs stop in Rivendell, but is it necessary? NOT REALLY the love story between her and Aragorn was in LOTR so put it to rest. Merry, Pippin, and Sam or Frodo (which I realize he will be there but if done tastefully would be ok)for that matter weren't even born yet for the hobbit and to repeat such great characters and make them their parents just cheapens the LOTR. I can even see adding Galadriel,Sauruman, even Legolas(whos father held the dwarfs captive) and some of the other characters cause they are explaining things that went on during the time of Bilbo's adventure while Gandalf was away from the dwarfs. Honestly the Hobbit doesnt need a "love" story side plot cause the only love story in the hobbit was Thorin's love for his gold. They should stay true to the book and the appendices and not worry about pleasing everyone and just make a GREAT movie
The Hobbit Movie Forum » Hobbit Movie
Characters needed and not needed from LOTR
(1421 posts)-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
I agree and I suspect Peter Jackson agrees too. He made a good job of LOTR; readers of the books were generally happy with the result. I think he will aim for the same this time.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I agree too, but Peter Jackson's adaptation of the White Council, with Cate Blanchett and Christopher Lee will be interesting...
Posted 1 year ago # -
I honestly believe that it fundamental the presence of Elrond. All the other characters, exept for Gandalf and Bilbo of course, don't exactly fit in. Mainly because it is entirely a different story. Maybe, but only on a very discreet way, Legolas, for he is from the Wooden Rhealm, but thats all.
Peter Jackson respected the essence of the story in LOTR, and I believe he won't mess up things now.Posted 1 year ago # -
I for one TRUST Peter Jackson, The Hobbit is in good hands!!!
Posted 1 year ago # -
I agree that PJ should not try and shove as many characters from LOTR in to The Hobbit as possible. I think especially not Viggo Mortensen. Aragorn could be in Rivendell at that time but as you say he would be quite young and would not yet (I believe) have been told by Elrond of his ancestry.
Legolas could play a part, although he is not directly mentioned in the book, he would be in and around the plot somewhere.
Frodo surely would play a part only as a flash forward or something as, of course, he was not yet born.
I for one am glad that they are doing this as a 2 part film so that it is not rushed. I feel that the LOTR films could have been done in the same way, like as each movie as 2 parts. Many of the significant plot lines and incidents that I was hoping to see on the big screen in LOTR were missed out. Lets hope this doesn't happen in the hobbit! :D
Posted 1 year ago # -
Let me start by saying that this whole "Itaril" situation is absurd. As I understand it, the concept is having a romance introduced that is between her and... Legolas? Anyway, if that happens and there is significant focus on that (comparable to the exaggerated focus on the romance between Aragorn and Arwen in LOTR; I mean, seriously, Arwen did not have that big of a part in the books), then I may just have a mind to get up and walk out of the theater (though I probably won't). As far as Aragorn is concerned, I'm thinking he might be about 20 at this time, which is about when he learned who he was, right? I'm not sure; I'm going off pure memory here. I don't see how the Frodo, Sam, Merry, or Pippin could make a cameo since they weren't alive yet, as others have mentioned. I would actually rather expect to see Legolas (although, simply as a background character, maybe a few lines), seeing as how he is the son of King Thranduil, correct?I could imagine Gimli somehow being weaseled in as another background character, since he was alive then. Of course, although not much is said about the White Council in the book, I would like to see at least a glimpse of it with all those revered characters: Galadriel, Celeborn, Saruman, Elrond, Cirdan, Glorfindel (who should not have been taken out of LOTR), etc. That's about all I have for now.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Bard/Aragorn should be the same character. That's how you shoehorn Aragorn into the Hobbit movies.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Aragorn was a ranger of the north and could have been involved in the fight with the Necromancer.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Aragorn and Bard as the same character? REALLY? no offense but thats ridiculous. I'm sure Peter Jackson will find someone for the ladies as good looking but more dark and brooding (as in the book)as Viggo for the role. As far as Aragorn fighting the necromancer, Aragorn was like 10 at the time of the hobbit if you do the math. I mean creative license is one thing but to put him there would be bad taste. and as far as everything I have read the white council and dealing with the necromancer are gonna be explored in the movies which should be really cool.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Sorry but I fail to see how that is ridiculous or in bad taste.
It no more ridiculous than casting a youthful, rather than middle-aged actor, to play Frodo.
No more ridiculous than re-writing Aragorn to be conflicted about his kingship, nor NOT carrying around his re-forged sword from the beginning of the movies.
No more ridiculous than omitting Tom Bombadil. Or having a Troll stab Frodo in Moria rather than a black orc. Or having Aragorn fall off a cliff after participating in a combat that never appears in the novels.
It's only ridiculous if I am a slave to the text or the timeline. So far, Jackson has proven to be quite flexible when it comes to his movie vision.
I am under no illusions that will bring back Viggo to play Bard/Aragorn, with his refusal of "Lord of Laketown" linked to his movie-character's ambivalence towards his kingly heritage. I think it would certainly be a good way to further connect the two movie series. And Bard is otherwise a bit of an enigmatic and underutilized character, which I think is a shame.
But i'm cool with you having a different perspective. Just not sure why my modest proposal is both ridiculous and in bad taste.
Posted 12 months ago # -
given that Aragorn is already an established character (people associate Viggo with that role)it just seems in poor taste to try and cheapen the role of a great character by putting a character whom we all know and love in a position that he shouldn't be put in. Omitting Tom Bombadil was ok by me cause he didnt move the story of LOTR along at all and would have slowed it down too much. Great character in book form but I dont think he would have translated to film well. As for the conflict of Aragorn and the sword reforging it added drama and suspense to the movies. and there are many things I think Peter Jackson could have done differently in LOTR and stayed truer to the books. (Arwen should have had a MUCH smaller role)but did I buy the dvd's 3 times and spend god knows how much money going to the theater to see all 3 films numerous times HECK YEAH. I just think it cheapens the Hobbit to try and bring back every character from LOTR that we loved in those films just to tie the films together. If PJ does it right they will be tied together without having to bring back all or even most of the cast of LOTR.
Posted 12 months ago # -
Aragorn is 10 during the events of the Hobbit. Therefore, if he appears, it should only be in the bridge. Arwen, by comparison is approximately 2700 years old at this time, therefore her appearance in the film can be completely justified if she wasn't staying in Lórien at the time, entirely possible considering Aragorn first saw her when he was around 20, despite having lived in Rivendell all his life.
As for Aragorn and Bard being the same character...that's not possible, for several reasons.
Posted 11 months ago # -
Gandalf leaves the company of 14 in the Hobbit to join the white council (comprised of Radagast the Brown, Saruman the White, and Gandalf the Grey)in chasing the Necromancer out of his southern hold in Mirkwood.
I can see the complete justification for having Saruman in the movie.
Legolas would be part of the high court in the elven kings household. He is after all the prince of Mirkwood.
I'm not sure what to think about Itaril.
I'm confused as to Galadriels purpose in the movie.
I'm apprehensive about how they're going to incorporate Frodo in, but since there's Old Bilbo I can assume the movie is either going to be told in flashback mode or something like that.Posted 11 months ago # -
I most pissed when Saruman was killed and the battle of The Shire didn't happen, that was an important part of the book for me. I see very little reason to make The Hobbit a two part movie, except to add a part using the Silmarillion and other misc Tolkien writings to bridge the gap between the two books together (The Hobbit,& LOTR). That's the only way this makes any sense. I awsumed that The Hobbit part 2 as after Bilbo finishes his first adventure.
Posted 11 months ago # -
i think it would be kinda nice to have aragorn (viggo mortensen) in the hobbit because he grew up in rivendell he says that in the two towers when aragorn and eoywn are talking on the road to helm's deep i thought but he said it in a movie of lotr anyway it would be quite nice to see him there i think viggo mortensen may come in the hobbit
Posted 11 months ago # -
For those of us who READ the book, Aragon has no place in the Hobbit..I believe Mr Jackson will stay very close to the book, but also give us a little more, his way, for enjoyment. Although I loved all the hot guys in the movie just as much as anyone, I'm more interested in Bilbo's tale, then revisiting The Lord of The Rings..and I am a HUGE FAN!!!! I don't really understand why it has to be in 2 parts, but I won't care when I'm paying to see it. It really is exciting to envision what we can expect.
Posted 11 months ago # -
"As for Aragorn and Bard being the same character...that's not possible, for several reasons."
-- Such as?
"Aragorn is 10 during the events of the Hobbit."
-- And Frodo is 50 years old -- middle-aged -- during the events of LOTR.
Posted 11 months ago # -
ahhh but 50 is young for a hobbit about like being in your late 20s early 30s for a human so frodo was a bit young looking but not like making a 10 year old boy a middle aged man. and as I said before Viggo has already portrayed Aragorn his face would be a distraction from the character of Bard. It just wouldnt work and be a serious piece in the movie. Honestly everyone I have talked to thinks it would be tacky and look ridicules as he already established the character of Aragorn
Posted 11 months ago # -
Just a thought but whilst Aragorn might not be involved in the first part of the hobbit movie he was involved in the hunt for Gollum and this could take place near the end of the 2nd movie as a prelude to the fellowship of the ring as I believe it was said there would be a connection between the LOTR and the Hobbit.
So could they bring in Arathorn as part of forces Gandalf was arranging after all the battle of the dale did involve dwarves, beorning, eagles and humans it wouldn't stretch too much to have Gandalf arrange to have some rangers present wouldn't it?Posted 11 months ago # -
now that would be a possibility about Arathorn Colin. but I dont know if they are still doing a bridge movie (I know I read at one point they were gonna and then heard they are not. and it will just be the hobbit and the events during that time frame and possibly back story stuff) to bring people up to speed for FOTR as far as the hunt for Gollum we shall see hopefully Peter Jackson will do another webisode like he did once they started filming
Posted 11 months ago # -
I won't talk about the need of aragorn anyway he had 27 years during bilbo's events. 60 years later when he become a king he was 87 .
Posted 11 months ago # -
You slavish and dogmatic attachment to the hobbit text is interfering with your ability to think like a movie director. PJ made some pretty heretical and controversial decisions when filming the original LOTR trilogy, by compressing timelines, altering characters, adding scenes, and so on. I'm looking forward to further improvements to the Hobbit movies.
If I were the director, i'd be frustrated by the character of Bard, someone who plays a crucial, yet all-too-brief, role in the Hobbit, as a leader, diplomat and monsterslayer, and then disappears entirely from the remainder of the quintology. Sounds like a great fit for an existing LOTR hero.
I'm not saying PJ will merge the characters, i'm just thinking outside the box here.
Posted 11 months ago # -
Correct me if I'm wrong, as I haven't read the Hobbit in a dreadfully long time, but wasn't Bilbo around 60 during that time? And the Fellowship starts with his eleventy first birthday. So about 50 years have passed. This negates Aragorn from being in the Hobbit, as humans are incredibly short lived compared to all the other races.
If I'm wrong, and aragorn is old enough to be a significant character, his name should never be revealed in the Hobbit. when he was just a ranger, he was known as Strider, and took great pains to hide his true identity.Posted 11 months ago # -
Well, in the extended Two Towers movie, Aragorn is revealed to be 87 when interrogated by Eowyn during the march to Helms Deep. He is one of the Dunedain that are long-lived. If you use 60 years, that would make him 27 at the time of The Hobbit. The timeline is all screwed up in the LOTR anyway, PJ had to compress and change the timeline, add new scenes, and change the order of events, for dramatic purposes.
IIRC, Aragorn went by many aliases, Strider was just one of them, Thorongil and Elessar were others. Why not Bard as another alias ... (other than the violence it does to the original text).
Posted 11 months ago # -
Actually there are 60 years in between the events of the hobbit and the begining of LOTR. and more years for Frodo leaving the Shire in Fellowship of the ring. The hobbit was in the year 2941 and the Hobbits left the shire in 3018 which would make Aragorn 10 years old. these years are from Tolkiens own appendixes, which doing the math are 77 years. and Laketown just wasnt explored in LOTR, Bard became king in 2944 and was never mentioned to be of the Dunedain rangers. Bard was descended from Lord Girion of Dale, whose wife and child had escaped to Laketown when Smaug ruined Dale and took the Lonely Mountain in 2770. Bard died in 2977. He was succeeded as King of Dale by his son Bain. theres a brief timeline for those willing to accept it. further proof aragorn does NOT need to be inn the Hobbit unless they add scenes up to FOTR to bridge the gap between LOTR and the Hobbit which from everything I have read and researched has been scraped but hey who knows. personally I am waiting on the announcement of Smaug.
Posted 11 months ago # -
Sure, you just had to bring up the violence that it does to the original text.
Now you're not fighting fair.
:D
Again, under no illusions that Bard will be re-written as Aragorn in drag. Merely observing that it would be a good way to rationalize the line-up and get Aragorn into the story.
Posted 11 months ago # -
To correct a few things here that have been stated but are - as far as I know - not correct:
The White Council consisted of Elrond, Galadriel, Saruman and Gandalf. Radagast was tasked by them to spy (let his birds spy) on the Necromancer and helped with driving Sauron out of Dol Guldur. This subplot is something I'd really like to watch btw. and it would find its place right in the story as it was mentioned just not described in detail in the Hobbit.
Aragorn would have no place in the movie no matter how you twist it. He would add a really foul taste for lovers of the book. Arwen however could walk by in a Rivendell scene or be watching the White Council (could have come with Galadriel).
It would be possible to extend the time in the Stonehalls of Mirkwood so that Prince Legolas could play a bigger role and this lovestory gets squished into the movie. Makes Bilbo an invisible voyeur but still... possible.
Boromir, Faramir and everything Gondorish would be definitivly out of place. Gimli was very, very young or not even born and since he'd either have lived in the Iron Mountins with Dain or the Blue Mountains, there would be no scene possible. Well, we have his father in there, so that's enough.Posted 11 months ago # -
Gimli was 139 at the beginning of the LOTR, which makes him what, 70-ish during the events of The Hobbit?
'Twill be interesting to see how PJ's vision shakes out. The inclusion of Aragorn would be a great opportunity to show the background to the Arwen/Aragorn story arc in LOTR.
I guess it depends on whether these two Hobbit movies are treated as substantially stand-alone films, of if PJ tries to create a master-arc that follows many of the erstwhile LOTR characters from Hobbit 1 to ROTK.
Posted 11 months ago # -
I agree with Dominik Marwege, Aragorn should not be in the movie. It would make it all very cheesy. It would have bin fun to have Gimli in, but really, it isn't necessary at all. And if, and only if, only for some brief seconds. I think that taking to many of the LOTR characters into the Hobbit would take the focus away from the real story, which we love! And that is getting the gold from Smaug!
Speaking of love, this love-story and the Itaril character. I can see and agree on that the hobbit, when made into a movie, needs some kind of strong female character. The book doesn't need it, but the movie, I think do. Not a big role, though, just so that their won't be only guys.
But a love-story? I don't think the Hobbit needs a love-story. And if so, PLEASE, if they do, PLEASE, make it a small story. Not like they did to Arwen and Aragorn (there I think the love-story was necessary because it would be a to heavy and long movie if it hadn't been there) but more like the one between Faramir and Eowyn (I believe there was a love-story there, which was barely mentioned in the LOTR movie and barely mentioned in the Return of the king(-book)).Posted 11 months ago #
Reply »
You must register or log in to post.
