The Hobbit Movie: Rumors & Speculations

So there are all kinds of rumors swirling around currently about Peter Jackson’s film adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit and I have to admit, I myself got caught up in the swirl for a moment. In fact the first draft of this post began with the sentence “Peter Jackson can suck it” before I decided to take a step back and separate the facts from the rumors and also the good rumors from the bad ones.

Here’s the first one: Cate Blanchett is coming back to play Galadriel. This one is actually starting to look less and less like a rumor and more like actual fact as the Hollywood Reporter released Tuesday that this is for real. Now I love me some Cate Blanchett but if this is true than I’m going to be upset. Galadriel doesn’t appear in The Hobbit book at all. I understand that certain liberties need to be taken when adapting a book to film, but adding in characters is not one of them – especially when said character were a big hit with the last films. This just feel like a Hollywood ploy to make sure this movie makes as much bank as the last. Case and point, the second rumor swirling around is that Orlando Bloom will be returning to play Legolas, another popular character from LOTR that was not in The Hobbit. If these rumors are true that I am seriously angry.

Another thing that is making me angry about the movie(s) is that they felt the need to make two of them. Again, no matter what their reasoning, at the end of the day they are all about getting paid. The Hobbit is a short book that is much less complex than all of the other LOTR books, so my point is that if they were able to do each LOTR book into a single movie than The Hobbit should have been a piece of cake to do in one film. The movies which are set to be released December 2012 and December 2013, should post some high Q4 profits, and two quarters in the black are better than one, right? Wrong.

The reason the LOTR films were so successful is because they more or less stayed true to the books (I’ve eliminated the scene where Legolas uses his shield as a skateboard to grind down the castle whilst shooting arrows from my memory). Should we put our faith in Peter Jackson that he will not steer us wrong again? Or should we start getting worried? Here are some rumors that I’m hoping are actually true – according to IMDB some other actors rumored to be in the film are David Tennant (Dr. Who) and Leonard Nimoy. It doesn’t say what their roles will be, but as long as the roles were actually in the book I think it could be pretty cool. I also like the choice of Martin Freeman (The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Love Actually, The Office) as Bilbo Baggins. So, I guess what I’m trying to say is that although I’m very skeptical at the moment about the movie I think there are also some positive signs that it could be good.

What do you think? Are you upset by some of the casting rumors, or don’t you really care so long as it’s a good movie? Leave me a comment and let me know your thoughts!

Follow me on Twitter @amiedaemons

Print This Post Print This Post

Please make sure to read our comment policy before posting a comment.
  • $ully

    I don’t see any problems at all, I’m totally positive about the whole concept.

  • aaron

    I see no problem with Galadriel and Legolas being in it. If rumours are correct about the driving of sauron from Mirkwood being part of the movie then I feel these characters need to be in it, considering Galadriel was part of the white council and Legolas is the son of Thranduil, the king of Mirkwood.

    In fact the dwarves were captured by Thranduil although at the time of publication he didn’t have a name. it makes sense Legolas would be present in Thranduil’s court.

  • thorongil

    Legolas and Galadriel are reasonable choices to bring into this movie. First of all, Legolas is son of Thranduil, who is king of the Mirkwood wood elves. Sure Legolas shouldn’t have a huge role, but he would absolutely have been seen in the elven king’s halls. The reason why they are creating two movies and adding Galadriel, is because they are including the White Counsil’s forcing of Sauron (the Necromancer) out of his Mirkwood fortress in Dol Guldur (as described in the appendices of LOTR, and is why Gandlaf left Bilbo and company to go South). These movies are going out of their way to change the structure of the story, not for cash, but to please the fans of Tolkien.

  • http://roberttaylor1990@blogspot.com timmytaylor

    Hi there,

    I don’t want sound horrible but if you did your homework first, you would know the reason why they have made these decisions. the hobbit was Tolkiens first book which was very light weight. When writing the lord of the rings, he obviously had a more of a visualizing and mythology behind Middle earth and the books have a lot of reference to The Hobbit, such as the meetings in the white council (Galadrial would of been there). Everything that they are mentioning about adding things to the film is some what true to the history and mythology of Middle earth. So Legolas being introduced into the film is not a bad thing. Because he most probably would have been there, being the son of Thanduil. The reason why he wasn’t in the Hobbit was because Tolkien had not even of thought creating the character in that specific time.

    So to conclude, The Hobbit is not just the interpretation of the book. But what was going on at the time in Middle Earth, which in my opinion is going to be so much more fulfilling and giving the Hobbit a more structural back bone to its original storyline.

  • Steve

    The first choice that PJ faces in making The Hobbit into movie(s) is in how that book is different from The Lord of the Rings. It begins as a Disney-style fairy tale, and has a charm that the LR lacks. Gimli is a far more serious character in the LR than the dwarves in The Hobbit. The elves in The Hobbit are quite silly and discordant with the elves of the LR. Elrond wasn’t very silly in The Hobbit, but his appearance was brief.

    It would have been perfectly fine for PJ to present The Hobbit just as it’s written, with it becoming more serious toward the end where it matches the LR better in tone. But it’s also perfectly fine for PJ to match The Hobbit in total with his LR films, including making the dwarvish clothing less colorful and the elves as actually serious characters.

    Now either way the adaptation could be done in one movie without cutting out too much (expect at least a 2.5-hour run length per movie). I’m a little concerned with the decision to split into two movies and expand beyond the scope of what is actually in The Hobbit book. Obviously this will require fundamental alterations that the book does not lend itself to.

    But, as a fan, and a fan who knows how The Hobbit was later made by Tolkien to fit into the broader Middle-earth world, and what was happening at that time, it’s great to potentially see what The Hobbit might have looked like if Tolkien had written it after the LR. Tolkien actually did set out to totally rewrite The Hobbit for that purpose, but gave it up. If you don’t believe me, read History of The Hobbit by John Rateliff.

    I’ve thought it’s fairly obvious that the screenplays were written with more source material on hand than The Hobbit itself. And therefore all of these complaints about Legolas and Galadriel not being in the book are moot. Legolas would definitely be in the Wood-elves’ halls and the Battle of Five Armies. These are in the book. The White Council and the attack on Dol Guldur are only hinted at in the book, but they do happen at that time, and Legolas and Galadriel would be involved. Plus many other characters such as Elrond and Gandalf and Saruman.

    But I wonder about PJ getting the rights to use material beyond The Hobbit and the LR. I have serious doubts that the Tolkien Estate would release its iron grip from anything else, such as Unfinished Tales.

  • noah

    Well, it must be considered that some early hobbit comments made by former director del Toro and current director pj hint that the first movie will be The Hobbit, and that the second will be a connector between that and LOTR. I for one am not worried…have complete faith in pj’s ability to translate Tolkien to film; he did it with THREE movie, he can do it with two more.

    • http://roberttaylor1990@blogspot.com timmytaylor

      They ll be making the hobbit into two parts. Not the first film just as the hobbit. they scraped that idea ages ago. almost 2 years ago, instead their gathering more info and adding it to the hobbit.

  • Afanoftolkiens

    i get PJ’s idea of broadening the hobbit story into the more complex world of middle earth as tolkien himself later indicated and hope for an entertaining adaptation. what would really excite me is the possibility (with such a long production & shooting schedule) of creating both a two film ‘big picture’ hobbit and then a single film hobbit that is true to tolkiens original bilbo centered narative. are you listening new line???? small dollars of investment for another film release???

  • Todd

    Personally I don’t have issues with Legolas or Galadriel being in it IF its done properly, and doesn’t detract from telling the story of the hobbit. I do think that Legolas should have a SMALL role in the films. (basically a cameo in both films with a line or two and nothing more) My main concern is that they don’t put Aragorn or other characters in just to put “familiar” faces or fan favorites in the movie. The only characters that are NEEDED to be brought back are Gandalf, Gollum, Elrond, and if they go with the driving the necromancer out of Mirkwood sub-plot then they would also need Saruman. but I do believe Christopher Lee said he would never return to middle earth again. not sure if its his age or if he’s still pissed about being cut from the theatrical version of ROTK. What I’m waiting for is to hear who is gonna be cast as the voice of Smaug or Bard. and the only real complaint I have is the fact that there will be a year in between releases. I mean Harry Potter was filmed back to back like the Hobbit will be and there’s only a 6 month gap in those releases.

  • chauvelin2000

    Chill out, dude.

    You’ve got to remember there’s a very good reason for two films, well beyond the concerns of profitability. And that is that one of the films will be bridging, serving as an elegant segue between THE HOBBIT and LOTR. The second installment will deal, in part if not entirely, with a period of about 60 years AFTER the events in Tolkien’s first Hobbit entry take place, a period of time in which both Galadriel AND Legolas were serious players in Tolkien’s world: the latter an Elven Prince (son of the King of Mirkwood) and the other a key member of the White Council that ultimately drives THE HOBBIT’s Necromancer (Sauron) from the Woodland Realm of Legolas’ father (the crucial reason for Gandalf’s abandoning the Hobbit party — to attend to the business of the Necromancer — just as they are embarking at the edge of Mirkwood forest on the last leg of their journey to the Lonely Mountain).

    So, chill those fiery anger coals.

    Peter Jackson has NEVER been just about $$$. Far from it. He — and many Kiwis like him — are among the most humble, down-to-earth human beings on earth (just ask any of the thousands of actors and professionals who’ve worked with this brilliant director over the last couple of decades). One has but to observe the multitudinous proofs for this in the personal accounts given in LOTR’s Extended DVD commentaries: the sincerity, zealous work ethic, and ingenuity of the craftsmen and women of this island nation is blindingly obvious.

    Hate to pop your bubble, fella, but no filthy-lucre conspiracy theories going on here. Jackson and his compatriots genuinely care about ART for ART’s sake. They LOVE their craft, for its own sake, quite apart from any notion of wild-eyed greed that ignorant people superimpose upon them. They’ve deserved every penny (and more) of whatever riches that have come to them because of their incredible talents and work ethic (which riches, by the way, Jackson has made it a habit of investing right back into his native film-making enterprise and into the local New Zealand film industry).

    The rich cache of literary material that Tolkien left (even in the LOTR Appendices) gives Peter Jackson and his award-winning script-writing team a wealth of fantasy fodder to easily require the forging of two films. Beyond all of this, though, is the importance of a second film to smoothly craft a coherent story that bridges Tolkien’s two epic tales. So, again … Chill.

    • http://roberttaylor1990@blogspot.com timmytaylor

      hey there,

      Its good you mentioned about PJ adding parts to the hobbit. but the two films are just going to be about the book with added references like the Nercomacer so the films are more fulfilling. Take a look on wikipedia and theonering.net. they said they had thought about that idea of a bridge but decided to scrap it. I think their just gonna stick with the story, they may have references towards the end of the 2nd just like the return of the king (the extra half an hour) in which all the loose knots are tied. But i don’t believe they are making a bridge movie.

    • Sam peters

      Then it should not be named “The Hobbit”. Maybe you don’t read books or others with there understanding. But I for one want see the book in visual. If i want see history, 60 years of blah blah or more then NAME IT according to what it is? where has all the common sense and logic gone with you guys.

  • Duder

    Mr. Jackson took many liberties in LOTR, two of which were unforgivable*. He might take unforgivable liberties with The Hobbit, but including Galadriel and Legolas won’t necessarily be among them. Why? Because their presence 1) is plausible and 2) may add depth to the story.

    As others have said, Gandalf and the White Council attacked the fortress of Sauron(“the Necromancer”)in Mirkwood. That is what Gandalf was doing when he was absent from Bilbo’s adventure. If this attack is to be shown in the movie, Galadriel, as a White Council member, must be there.

    It boils down to whether or not you want to show the attack on Dol Guldur. It is not directly narrated in the book, so why show it? Because we who have read and seen LOTR understand its importance- what it sets up. The first-time The Hobbit reader does not.

    The danger arises from the fact that there is precious little to guide Jackson in how the attack on Dol Guldur went down. He’s got to tell it and make us believe that it’s Tolkien telling it. I think he can do it, despite the evidence of his two unforgivable LOTR errors*. My vote? Go for it.

    As for Legolas, he’s unnecessary but plausible. As the king’s son we shouldn’t be surprised to see him among the Wood Elves in Mirkwood or later with the elvish contingent in the Battle of Five Armies.

    _______________

    *The omission of The Scouring of the Shire and the shabby treatment of Faramir.

    • jim

      Well said. Oh and how about the shabby treatment of Gandolf? That was disappointing.

      • Kevin

        Completely agree. In the extended version, Gandalf’s staff was broken and himself was nearly killed by the Witch King….

        I mean WTF is that?

        I am so glad he cut that piece of garbage from the theater version at least.

  • David

    I am really excited about the film and don’t mind the 2 charachters being added.

    But Amie is right, by making it into 2 films they are simply looking for an extra pay day from it. The Hobbit should not be a 2 film event.

  • Amanda

    Gladriel and Legolas are flash backs.. They arent adding the characters

  • http://roberttaylor1990@blogspot.com timmytaylor

    Lol from the future?

  • jim

    I am fasinated with the two movie arrangement. Tolkien spent a good deal of time with the appendix of the Lord of the Rings, and part of that deals with with the characters during the time of the Hobbit. It will very entertaining to to see how Jackson assembles the story line with Sauron, the White Council and possiably Striders activity in Gondor before he went into the wild. That extra original material should enrich the movies and lay the ground for more Tolkien movies based on the Similerian.
    If your really into Tolkien, no movie can live up to the books. Jackson should do a great job….did you ever see that (awful) Hobbit movie from the 80’s?

  • Sam peters

    Why would you name and produce a movie after a book and not follow the book? Atleast name it the New adventures of the hobbit. Sounds to me that there using the fame of the Hobbit book, Then creating own add in to create a bigger film. Sorry but The hobbit without adding your own BS can make 1 full movie. 2 the hobbit as we all know has claimed its fame, Why would you want make up your own additions and use the very same name? When you are not obviously J.R.R token? I am Sure the writers in there own mind think they are as good as he is. But do any of them have even 1 book or name even close to his in the world? I am with this article. I think this movie will be visually incredible..have great actors. But diffently will fall short of the Golden Simplexity and captivating writing of the Book “The Hobbit” everone has come to adore. And no there not gonna change the name for obvious reasons. Money! But as with other movies it be yeah good movie thats about it. But the Book will stay Legendary:D Greed cannot create art:) and “The Hobbit” is Art. This movie will be a good fast thrill then its done:D

    • http://www.daemonsbooks.com Amie

      Thanks for the comment Sam! Finally somebody that agrees with me haha!

  • Sam peters

    READ THE TITLE, “The Hobbit” By J.R.R. Tolkien Hence it should be the story of what the original author wrote. If not that is fine..BUT DONT miss label or represent what it is NOT.

    • Battersea

      Movies are a completely different medium than books. Remember this is PETER JACKSONS “THE HOBBIT” i trust his artistic liberties will be justified just as it was in LOTR.
      Im just excited to be returning to middle earth after a decade. :)

  • David Gibb

    At last Same Peters, a voie of reason!!!!!

  • Kevin

    Totally no problem with two films. I am a little biased because I don’t like The Hobbit (a children’s book) while I adored LOTR and Silmarillions.

    So adding more back story (White Council, Gollum, Sauron) would totally satisfy me. I think a lot of us are just excited to see the Middle Earth in its glory (and even better CGI effects) again.

    But I understand your worries – I hope they don’t end up inventing unnecessary stories just for the sake of, for example, inserting Orlando Bloom for his handsome face and appeal to girls.

    • Snowghost83

      wow…all you cry babies who bitch about legoals and galadriel and other added material need to quit crying!!! I mean as a tolkien fan can you honestly say you wouldnt want to see the attack on Dol Goldur??? what the heck??? i know i sure want to see it on screen…especially with Jackson’s epic mindset and way with battles. it should be pretty awsome. how could that added material not be fun to watch? anyway…everyone needs to quit bitching…jackson and co are gonna do whatever they want regardless of what pissy little geek fans say….Peace

  • Battersea

    of all the things to worry about there are 2 things to remember that should have every Tolkien fan elated…..

    1…..The Hobbit is finally being made! :)
    2…..PETER JACKSON

    nuf said!

  • Cliffhanger

    It has to be said, As soon as Guillermo del Toro went and PJ hoved into view – all that was bright and good in my heart about the prospects for this film (these films) went into the darkness. PJ is the problem, not the addition of LOTR characters which can reasonably be expected in the vicinity of the The Hobbit. When we think of the japes at Battle of Minas Tirith and the arrival of the elves at the Battle of Helms Deep!!!

  • Michael

    Take a deep breath and RELAX Amie..

    The reason the Lord Of The Rings trilogy on film was a success is PETER JACKSON.  The odds against anyone adapting the LOTR novels into coherent movies was one in about a trillion.  PJ not only made the movies work, he made ’em pure magic.  How the hell can you be upset when you haven’t seen them ???? 

    Nearly every aspect of The Lord Of The Rings books were changed in the movie versions. What Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens did do was stay true to the THEMES of Tolkien.

    Movies and books are two entirely different animals.  If you are so upset don’t react to  rumors.  In fact don’t contribute to rumors.  I mean, what’s the point ? 

    As Christopher Lee (maybe the biggest Tolkien fan in the world) said … in nearly every case the changes Peter Jackson made from books into movies were improvements. In any case if you are such an anal retentive purist, then stick to the books.

    I love the fact Cate Blanchett, Orlando Bloom and even Elijah Wood will be in the Hobbit movies … and so will most who see the movies. 

    Count on it.