The Cast of the Hobbit...

[Fundin Snowarm]

If you were called on to cast the film version of the Hobbit...would you offer the part of Bilbo to Ian Holm, or would you pick a younger actor? Who?

[Rangerdave]

I have no idea who should play Bilbo, but Brian Blessed is my first choice for Thorin Oakenshield.
see attached picture below

If you have not seen Brian at work, you have missed a real treat.


RD

PS: He would have made the perfect Bombadil

[Sarah]

Bilbo: Ian Holm
Gandalf: Ian Mckellan
Gollum: Andy Serkis
Elrond: Hugo Weaving
Bard: (I said Christian Bale in another post, but I've changed my mind.) Hugh Jackman (I think he'd do a great job as bard).
Smaug: James Earl Jones

[Tinuvien21]

Yah, Brian Blessed looks like a better TomB. Hugh Jackman as Bard? Hmm. Never thought about that B4. *tries to visualize Hugh as Bard*

[Fundin Snowarm]

What about brian blessed as Beorn and daniel day-lewis as bard?

[Arthur_Vandelay]

The guy who played Hamish in Braveheart would make a good dwarf. As would Billy Connolly.

Seriously, though it would necessitate a marvellous leap forward in prosthetic technology, I couldn't see anyone else but Ian Holm returning as Bilbo. I think I'd prefer to see a lesser-known actor play Bard.

Do you think they'd include Legolas, Arwen, Saruman, or Galadriel, even though they don't appear in the book?

[Dáin Ironfoot I]

Rosie O'Donnell with a fake beard would make an excellent Bombur ;)

[Sarah]

Do you think they'd include Legolas, Arwen, Saruman, or Galadriel, even though they don't appear in the book?

saruman, probably.
galadriel, maybe.
legolas, slim chance (maybe a cameo in mirkwood).
arwen, definately not.

[Arthur_Vandelay]

saruman, probably.
galadriel, maybe.
legolas, slim chance (maybe a cameo in mirkwood).
arwen, definately not.

I'd say Saruman and Galadriel are the most likely to reappear, if the filmmakers are going to show Gandalf and the White Council driving Sauron from Dol Guldur.

Legolas' cameo probably depends upon the size of Orlando Bloom's appearance fee.

[Inderjit S]

Arwen? God no....she is not really important without the Aragorn factor and it would just be a waste of money for her to appear. Besides she was in Lorien at the time. ;)

Considering Bilbo didn't age in the time between the finding of the ring and the party, then the same actor should play him.

[Maeglin]

I think that whoever the guys is that plays Wolverine in the X-men movies would make an excellent Bard....he'd probably cost too much though.....

[Inderjit S]

His name is Hugh Jackman.

[Sarah]

yeah, i said hugh jackman. He is also the guy in van helsing (or is he van helsing. I don't know)

[Maeglin]

ohhh ok, sorry about that, I know that it was already mentioned in the thread. Glorf feels stupid...he'll just go now.... :o

[Dáin Ironfoot I]

It all depends on the manner of the movie and who is directing it. If it is PJ, we can be fairly certain it will retain the same tone as the LOTR series. If not, however, the mood could be more childish.

I highly doubt that prominent actors such as Cate Blanchett, Ian Holm, Christopher Lee, or Ian McKellan would lend their names to a 'children's film.'

[Sarah]

I highly doubt that prominent actors such as Cate Blanchett, Ian Holm, Christopher Lee, or Ian McKellan would lend their names to a 'children's film.'

Ian Mckellen already said he would continue his role as gandalf if there was a hobbit movie. The other three probably will, too, if asked. I'm not quite sure about christopher lee, tho, considering how his character was treated in ROTK...

[Dáin Ironfoot I]

He stated he was interested under the notion that PJ would make the film. If youve listened to the commentaries you will hear his snideness when it comes to making films, often making comments towards Lee's many miserable movies. He would not place his name in a movie which is regarded as childish and silly, which is the general tone of the book.

[HLGStrider]

I don't know. I sometimes think actors must find it refreshing to play in children's movies. I know I would. I think if I were an actor they'd be my preference.

Anyway. . .Hugh Jackman? NAH! Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah. . .

But perhaps my Bard is "tainted" by the cartoon Bard. I see more of a younger Pierce Brosnan type (no Bond jokes please). Truthfully, though he's already been taken, Sean Bean also would look the part. . .I'm not very good at naming actors, so let me concentrate on this for a moment. . .ummm. . .

Keep Gandalf and Bilbo. I wouldn't mind a change for a lighter hearted, kinder looking Elrond. . .perhaps even younger looking in a pinch.

How about Malcom MacDowel somewhere in here. . .I like that guy.

[Aglarband]

I think this Book could not make it as a Kids movie. Know why? Parents won't take thier kids to see it. No matter what the reviews are. They will think it's just like the other movies and will refuse to let their kids watch it.

Casting:
Smaug: Sean Conery (he's just bad ass) He is one of the few people who has already played a good Dragon (Dragon Heart).
Gollum: Andy Serkins, man that guy was good.
Bard: Hugh Jackman sounds ok.
Beorn: A scruffy looking actor... Kinda unknown but has experiance.
Gandalf: Ian McKellen, he IS Gandalf in my book.
Bilbo: Ian Holm
Dwarves: Who cares, there is so many of them!

[HLGStrider]

I doubt that is true.

For one thing there were seven-year-olds in the theater for the RotK with me. I thought they probably shouldn't have been there (Shelob would've been enough to give me nightmares at that age), but they were.

If it gets a PG rating parents are not going to hesitate to take their kids.

Plus the Hobbit has a reputation of being "sweeter" and with marketing, you can easily get the word out that kids are welcome.

[Inderjit S]

I think this Book could not make it as a Kids movie. Know why? Parents won't take thier kids to see it. No matter what the reviews are. They will think it's just like the other movies and will refuse to let their kids watch it.

Lot's of kids loved 'The Lord of The Rings'. And people are not complete ignoramuses-they will naturally know that 'The Hobbit' is a children’s book and although they will act with caution with regards to the violence in the book and thus the movie, they will still probably see it as more wholesome, or suitable for children then the Ring trilogy.

[Narsil]

I think The Hobbit will only work if it's produced by PJ, in the same vein/manner as LOTR. It need not be "childish" at all. It's a good book in itself. I've read it twice and always enjoy it. I really hope that PJ decides to film it. IMO It will only work if it does indeed feel and look like it's predecessor. Quite a switch from the book where The Hobbit came first and set the tone! :D

My kids are ages 10 and 7. They loved LOTR. I never took them to the theater because I wanted to enjoy the movie without them being there! Unless it's a G-rated flick I always check out a movie first before letting them see it. Look how gruesome the latest edition of Harry Potter was! It's important to check any movie out first when you have younger kids.

We have the DVD extended versions of the first two parts of LOTR as well as the theater version of ROTK and they often watch them on our big screen TV. The only thing I did do was skip over the first part of ROTK where Gollum kills Deagol. It was a bit much for the kids. When FOTR first came out my son didn't watch it. By the time TTT was out he was ready and my kids sat and watched ROTK without interruption the day the DVD came out. We all eagerly await the extended version.

My son has all the LOTR computer games and often asks me about what happens in the books. I think if you explain and supervise things and try to impart the magic of ME to children it will work if the movie is written for adults. The Hobbit could be a beautifully made movie if it doesn't come off as a hokey fantasy flick like so many movies are these days. It shouldn't be made tongue-in-cheek. It should be straightforward and serious but done well. I think if PJ doesn't mess around with the plot and throw things in that shouldn't be there it'll work out great.

As far as casting goes, Ian McKellan is Gandalf, as well as Ian Holm as Bilbo.. without a doubt. I wouldn't mind seeing Christopher Lee back as Saruman, though I still wonder what the heck happened with him in ROTK! :confused:

In fact, I think all of the original LOTR actors should be brought back if possible. Hugo Weaving as Elrond most definitely would play a part in The Hobbit. I could see Legolas making an apparance. As fort Galadriel and Arwen? I don't see why, except to add some women into the story. If I had to choose it would be Galadriel for sure if they included the White Council driving Sauron out of Mirkwood, which would be an interesting scene. They could add some foreshadowing for what's to come in LOTR. Heck, if George Lucas can make prequels for Star Wars why not the same for LOTR?

I find it interesting that some of you named Sean Connery of Dragonslayer and James Earl Jones, the voice of Darth Vader in Star Wars to play Smaug. Good choices, but a bit obvious. :D

[Dark_Glamdring]

I think The Hobbit will only work if it's produced by PJ, in the same vein/manner as LOTR. It need not be "childish" at all. It's a good book in itself. I've read it twice and always enjoy it. I really hope that PJ decides to film it.

The Hobbit book is not childish by itself, and any other good director (there are many) can make of it a great film without PJ´s actitute to change everything. PJ turned LOTR into a child movie, more than the book really is. Stupid situation, childish characters, more action less dialogues...that´s PJ

In fact, I think all of the original LOTR actors should be brought back if possible. Hugo Weaving as Elrond most definitely would play a part in The Hobbit. I could see Legolas making an apparance. As fort Galadriel and Arwen? I don't see why, except to add some women into the story. If I had to choose it would be Galadriel for sure if they included the White Council driving Sauron out of Mirkwood, which would be an interesting scene. They could add some foreshadowing for what's to come in LOTR. Heck, if George Lucas can make prequels for Star Wars why not the same for LOTR?
First: LOTR characters, but a few ones , are not in The Hobbit, because The Hobbit is an independent story with another main characters to take care of. So Galadriel, Legolas and specially...Arwen... SHOUL NOT be in The Hobbit.
George Lucas: See one thing, George Lucas is the creator of Star Wars and he can continue writting/adding thing to his story... and PJ is not Tolkien. So what the heck: nothing and I wish PJ-LOTR could forget about the competition with SW.
(OMG!! What the movies had done, have no good expectation in PJ-Hobbit)

[Mrs. Maggott]

I have just finished listening to an unabridged audiobook of The Hobbit. Although it is ostensibly a "children's story" - so was the Chronicles of Narnia - aside from certain comments by the narrator (author) which are interspersed through the story (the comment about the trolls being uncouth even when they only had one head or that "tomnoddy" being insulting to anyone), the story is anything but childish! It is quite sophisticated in its plot and certainly in the various meanings contained within (the evil of the greed, the virtues of loyalty and courage etc.).

The Hobbit is a true classic although it was written for children. Like Treasure Island, I don't think that any actor of stature would refuse to be a part of a good production of the book as film. Of course, "good" is the operative word here. McKellan won't mind since he had no problem with LOTR by Jackson. There is no need to be concerned with Banchette or Lee because their characters don't appear in the story. Beorn should have the look of a very large and strong man - like Robby Coltrane in the Harry Potter films if the actor could lower his voice to a bass rumble. I am not familiar with the current crop of actors available in the entertainment industry, so I am unaware if there are other "large" actors out there - other than Coltrane. But Beorn is a force of nature (rather like Hagrid) and should look like one.

Bard should not be "pretty" but rugged and dour, a warrior who sees little reason for lighthearted silliness. Indeed, LOTR's Elrond (whose name I cannot recall) would make a passable Bard. However, I don't know if fans of the original films would be able to disassociate the actor from the character of Elrond and accept another actor in that role since Elrond is one of the few characters who appear in both stories.

[Narsil]

First: LOTR characters, but a few ones , are not in The Hobbit, because The Hobbit is an independent story with another main characters to take care of. So Galadriel, Legolas and specially...Arwen... SHOUL NOT be in The Hobbit.


I agree 100%.

I think that if PJ does produce The Hobbit he should stick to the book and not change, delete or add anything. Of course, given his history with LOTR I guess it's wishful thinking. There was much about the movies that I did love. I just wish that PJ would trust in and stick to Tolkien. :(

Beorn should have the look of a very large and strong man - like Robby Coltrane in the Harry Potter films if the actor could lower his voice to a bass rumble

Excellent idea! :cool:

[HLGStrider]

I think both Connery and Jones would be too obvious, too expected, for Smaug. The thing is I can't think of anything good to replace them. Oh, I can think of some ridiculous ideas (worse case scenario).


Smaug voiced by Weird Al Yanckovic.

Smaug voiced by Jennifer Lopez.

Smaug voiced by Peewee Herman.

Etc.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Smaug's is a "black" voice. The fellow who narrated the audiobook of the Hobbit did a very nice Smaug indeed. He might be prevailed upon to do so in any film as well. Of course, you want a voice that it not instantly recognized (and so would "color" the character), but it must have considerable strength and resonance. It cannot be "light" or high-timbered. But it would not be bad if it were also "smooth" in such a way as to intimate Smaug's deceiptful personality. Remember, Tolkien mentions the "dragon's spell" under which Bilbo almost fell and revealed himself. So you don't want the dragon to be a simple brute; he is ancient and wicked and intelligent and since the only venue to have to advance that aspect of the character is the actor's voice, you must have an actor who can do so. Christopher Lee (since he isn't going to be in the film) could do it well, I believe. Of course, much though I wasn't happy with R&B's version, the actor who did the voice of Smaug (Richard Boone) was exceptional.

[HLGStrider]

Then I suppose Smaug voiced by Weird Al is totally out of the question?

[EáSurion]

Bilbo: Ian Holm
Gandalf: Ian Mckellan
Gollum: Andy Serkis
Elrond: Hugo Weaving
Bard: (I said Christian Bale in another post, but I've changed my mind.) Hugh Jackman (I think he'd do a great job as bard).
Smaug: James Earl JonesAgree here..Though I would like Bard to be... Well... uhm...*can't remember his name..* The one that plays Gimli..*starting curse my memory*

[Astaldo]

Gimli is John-Rhys Davies

[Galadhwen]

I can certainly see Hugh Jackman as Bard and instantly could see Brian Blessed as Beorn though on second thoughts I think Blessed would be too Shakesperian even if he could sound rustic. Smaug definitley needs the power of Lee's voice but no one springs to mind- oh I can't wait for Holm and Serkis to play out the Riddles! I hope the White Council is included I think that would work nicely especially as dialogue is alluded to in LOTR.
I'm not sure who he could play but I can see David Jason in there somewhere- maybe as a Laketown official?
I don't know where this idea came from but how bout Geofrey Rush as Smaug? or the Goblin King? He's got a sought of gravelly voice that could be interesting :rolleyes:

[Astaldo]

I think Sir Sean Connery would be better for Smaug. Besides he knows the role of a dragon (remember Dragonheart? ;) )

[Mrs. Maggott]

Quote I don't know where this idea came from but how bout Geofrey Rush as Smaug? or the Goblin King? He's got a sought of gravelly voice that could be interesting.

With Johnny Depp as the Elven King? :p

[Astaldo]

I don't know. I have always thought Thranduil as a fat Elf and somewhat older than the others (in appearnce)

[HLGStrider]

The Mirkwood Elf fellow has to be sort of "spidery" in my mind. Fat just wouldn't do. I'm afraid my Elf king is corrupted by the weird cartoon hobbit, however.

I still think Connery as Smaug would ruin it. Everyone would point to the screen and gasp, "IT'S SEAN CONNERY!"

Besides, I don't think Smaug was Welsh.

[Galadhwen]

With Johnny Depp as the Elven King?
Now that sounds good! :D Would blond hair suit him do you think?

[Astaldo]

What about the Lord of Dale. You know that mean guy :) . Who do you think should play him?

[Supernita]

I have no clue who to cast as who (except Bilbo and Gandalf and whoever carries over from the lotr trilogy) but I have a comment about PJ's changing things in the trilogy. I think if he made The Hobbit, he would be less likely to change/delete things, because the book is smaller.. a lot less story to work with. With the trilogy, some things had to be changed (yes I agree, some things were changed unnecessarily) in order to keep the movies shorter than 50 hours long. It's just a thought though :). I really liked The Hobbit and would love to see it made unchanged as well.

[Bucky]

I don't understand a few things....

1. Why must all the same actors as TLOR be in The Hobbit when

A. Ian Holm is OBVIOUSLY way to old to play a 50 year old Bilbo and

B. The scenes where Gandalf takes off to remove Sauron from Dol Guldur with The White Council are only alluded to & not described in the book's narrative and just take away from the main story line as far as 'Joe Average Moviegoer' is concerned?

Do we really need to see Arwen (who is actually in Lorien at this time), Legolas (not even mentioned even though his father imprisons the Dwarves) or Galadriel & Celeborn (not any near) just for the sake of bringing back characters from TLOR who would likely not be available to do small cameos?

As for this being a children's story, forget it.....

That's for 'Finding Nemo II. :D

You can be sure PJ will make it like TLOR, & furthermore, I guarentee you that Smaug dies in 'The Battle Of Five Armies And One Dragon'. :eek:

[HLGStrider]

I disagree on one or two points. I think Ian Holm can be made to look reasonably young, and I am not basing this on the few seconds of him as young/Bilbo in the FotR. I am basing this off of The Emperor's New Clothes. He played Napoleon in this and managed to look young enough that I didn't think it odd that he was with a thirty-something-ish lady in a romantic role. I think he could managed fifty.

However, I don't think all the roles necessarily need to be reprised. My choice would have been Dudley Moore. . .sigh. . .

I think he could have played it in the right spirit and that's who I fall back on when I think of short, British actors.

Anyways. . .

I don't think all the cameos brought up would be necessary (and Arwen, Galadriel, Legolas, and Sarumen would all be cameos, really). It would make this seem like a cheep way to make money off the very sucessful trillogy (which it might be, but let's not be too obvious about it).

I also think it could make a very impressive children's story, but I think what Bucky is thinking about as far as Children's story is all wrong. Some of the great children's stories are very real, very uncute, and ungimicky. In some ways they are even very harsh. Let's stay away from Disney, but I think we can keep the children's story book world image.

[Richard]

Regarding Bilbo I think a younger actor should do it. Remember Gandalf had to push Bilbo out the door to begin with. I would like to see naivete in Bilbo. I would be interested in how an unexpected party plays out.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Regarding Bilbo I think a younger actor should do it. Remember Gandalf had to push Bilbo out the door to begin with. I would like to see naivete in Bilbo. I would be interested in how an unexpected party plays out.
Bilbo's naivete was not the result of youth, but inexperience. He had lived a very sheltered life but he was certainly no longer young, being 50 years old, some 17 years past his "coming of age" at 33. Therefore, the age of the actor doesn't matter as much as the ability of the actor - and, more importantly, the script - to represent this individual who has lived his whole life going no more than 10 miles or so from his home!

[Galadhwen]

I still think Ian Holm would be perfect- I haven't got the book on me at the moment but doesn't LOTR begin with saying that Bilbo looks 'unchanged' from when he came back with the Ring? In the film up until he goes to Rivendell he looks as he would in the Hobbit- If anything the 17yr old Elijah looks way too young for a 50yr old Frodo! Consider this Frodo is 5 yrs older than Boromir! I think Ian Holm should look as he does at the beginning of Fellowship.

[joxy]

One of the main characteristics of Bilbo is that he is of quite mature age but still naive in relation to the world outside the Shire.
He should certainly look very much as he does at the beginning of the FOTR film and Ian Holm is the only possible choice.
And yes, film Frodo does look too young, though of course the film doesn't "know" how old he really "is"!
So Bilbo should be no problem if IH is available, but how do they find a full cast of dwarves? - and they'd better include them all!

[baragund]

Don't forget time is marching on. The longer it takes to start filming, the harder it will be to make Mr. Holm look like a young man.

[HLGStrider]

How close is this project to being "started."


I don't think five years is going to make that much of a difference. Holm didn't age that much between the Fifth Element and the LotR's.

[baragund]

The current thinking is that Peter Jackson and New Line will make The Hobbit. But Mr. Jackson wants to finish his current project which is a remake of King Kong, and then there are some legal issues because another studio (MGM I believe) owns the movie rights to The Hobbit.

So it probably won't get off the ground for another couple of years or so. :(

[Mrs. Maggott]

Well, as Mr. Jackson does not "own" the technical effects, it may be that someone else will film The Hobbit, someone who actually cares about the original tale and its true meaning, making use of the technical effects used in LOTR (the only good part of those films besides the acting, IMHO). It is to be devoutly hoped that such will be the case.

If not, then I can only hope that legal and professional matters will delay Mr. Jackson's assault upon this story to a point in time at which he develops an interest in some other poor author. Hopefully his interests will have changed before he has the opportunity to embark upon any more Tolkien projects.

[baragund]

Hmmmm...

Mrs. M, I'll go waaayyyy out on a limb and guess that you were less than ecstatic over Mr. Jackson's treatment of LOTR.



Just a hunch... ;)

[Mrs. Maggott]

Hmmmm...

Mrs. M, I'll go waaayyyy out on a limb and guess that you were less than ecstatic over Mr. Jackson's treatment of LOTR.

Just a hunch... ;)
I started out absolutely enthusiastic about the films. After I saw the first film, I was disappointed with the changes made in the characters and what those changes did to the story, but I was still willing to watch the films as "Jackson's story" since it was obviously no longer Tolkien's!

After the second film, I wondered if Jackson had ever read the book but at least I still found some things of value. Unfortunately, they were damned few - and I was especially angry about the continued destruction of the characters.

After the third film in which Jackson destroyed the only good character he had - Gandalf - and absolutely ruined the relationship between Frodo and Sam, I realized that I would never be able to enjoy watching these films - and that, frankly, is a shame.

That is why I hope that The Hobbit is spared Mr. Jackson's kind attentions. Far better that it should remain a book than that Jackson's machinations make a visual "re-write" of a story that deserves far, far better.

[Astaldo]

I really don't like the changes that PJ did but I love watching these films because they are magnificent (as films and not as the book stories).

[Mrs. Maggott]

I really don't like the changes that PJ did but I love watching these films because they are magnificent (as films and not as the book stories).
I might have felt that way had I not loved the book as much as I do.

However, in the matter of cinematography, I did think that in the last two films - and the third especially - Jackson began to rely far too much on his c.g. effects as a replacement for good character development, interaction and plot. In fact, after awhile all those c.g. "people" and effects began to pall (again, this is my own opinion) simply because the story was getting confused and the characters more shallow with every film. It was almost as if Jackson were moving from a "live action" to an "animated" format.

As an example, let me cite the "scrubbing bubbles" Army of the Dead who cleaned out an occupied Minas Tirith in less time than it took for Legolas to comb his fair locks! It looked to me as if Jackson had gotten bored with the battle and wanted it over - and this particular arrangement seemed to him to be the least problematic way of taking care of the matter. In event, I found the M.T. battle to be even less acceptable in form and substance than the Battle at Helm's Deep (and that's saying something!). As for the Battle before the Black Gates, well, I don't even remember it. By that time, Jackson's destruction of his own excellent Gandalf had put me right out of sorts - and out of patience.

I love LOTR and the Harry Potter books and therefore films of those works had to meet a very high standard for me - ESPECIALLY with regards to the characters - for without the characters, you have no story! On the other hand, I didn't know anything about Dune, so I was content to accept a reasonably good film. If it strayed from the book to an appreciable degree, so be it! And that was the difference for me with these films. All the glitz and the glamor, the technical brilliance and the scenic beauty, the acting, the costumes, the casting etc. was "trumped" by stupid changes in character and plot that were not necessitated by the change in medium. Rather, they were the result of Mr. Jackson and his writers' belief that they could "do it better". They couldn't and they didn't.

[Astaldo]

Well Mrs. Maggot I love very much these books too, but I thank also PJ despite his "mistakes" for the opportunity he gave to all LOTR fan, including me, to se our beloved book in movies.

As for the characters I strongy agree with you. Some of them changed so much that you thought you were watching something else (Faramir).

Finally I think that with TTT and ROTK PJ wanted to attract more people that were not so inside to the works of Prof. Tolkien because he was forced from New Line Cinema (remember that the budget was huge) to make the movies more like in Hollywood style. But of course all these are my opinions and no-one has to embrace them. :)

[Mrs. Maggott]

Well Mrs. Maggot I love very much these books too, but I thank also PJ despite his "mistakes" for the opportunity he gave to all LOTR fan, including me, to se our beloved book in movies.

As for the characters I strongy agree with you. Some of them changed so much that you thought you were watching something else (Faramir).

Finally I think that with TTT and ROTK PJ wanted to attract more people that were not so inside to the works of Prof. Tolkien because he was forced from New Line Cinema (remember that the budget was huge) to make the movies more like in Hollywood style. But of course all these are my opinions and no-one has to embrace them. :)
But you see, to me that's just the point! Jackson DIDN'T give us the opportunity to "see our beloved book in the movies"! Had he done so, even without all the special effects etc., I would have been satisfied. What he did do was give us his particular interpretation of what he thought the story should have been - and that's a far different thing!

As for his time and budget limits, very, very few of the changes he made that I found problematic were the result of those considerations. His character changes certainly saved neither money nor time. Furthermore, he added many plot inventions that increased the expenditure of time and money (see warg riders in TTT). No, none of the excuses that have been put forth as reasons why Jackson's films deviated so greatly from the book are valid - again, in my opinion.

However, this is all "old stuff" and has been hashed out countless times in the film threads. If you enjoyed the films, I am pleased. Alas, I did not. And whatever Jackson's motives, the films are finished and cannot be unmade and then remade to suite myself and others who feel the same way. I merely brought the matter up because we are considering a "Jackson 'The Hobbit'" and I wanted to point out that if he continues as he began, I am not sanguine about the finished product.

[baragund]

Soooo...

Who do you think should direct a film version of The Hobbit?


btw, Where on Long Island are you located Mrs. M? I grew up in Garden City.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Soooo...
Who do you think should direct a film version of The Hobbit?

I am not familiar with the various personnel available, but I was satisfied generally with Chris Columbus' treatment of the first 2 H.P. films. I know they weren't perfect, but he certainly made every effort to get the characters right which - as you might guess - is my "hobby horse". I wasn't too thrilled with the 3rd film, but that was more a matter of the change of the geography of Hogwarts than a reinterpretation of the characters (Hagrid's house which used to stand on a nice level green lawn on a the same plane as the school is now located down in a hollow and requires a long stone stairway to reach!). My husband didn't like the film that well because he thought it was much darker than the first two, but actually the stories begin to get darker, so it is understandable that the director might have started to "darken" the films as well.

Furthermore, The Hobbit is a film that might well benefit from a director who is willing to allow what is generally a children's story to remain so! After all, where is the "love interest"? There isn't any! Yet Jackson got entirely wrapped around the axle with the Aragorn/Arwen thing which has very little impact on LOTR. Indeed, the longest part of that story takes place in the Appendix, not the narrative!

btw, Where on Long Island are you located Mrs. M? I grew up in Garden City.
I live within walking distance of the Whitman Mall in Huntington Station (South Huntington). Garden City is lovely. Here, you have a huge contrast between the very commercial aspect of Jericho Turnpike and Route 110 and the beautiful "rural" landscape of the West Hills area, a mere 2 minute drive away!

[Astaldo]

But you see, to me that's just the point! Jackson DIDN'T give us the opportunity to "see our beloved book in the movies"! Had he done so, even without all the special effects etc., I would have been satisfied. What he did do was give us his particular interpretation of what he thought the story should have been - and that's a far different thing!
Maybe you're right :)

As for his time and budget limits, very, very few of the changes he made that I found problematic were the result of those considerations. His character changes certainly saved neither money nor time. Furthermore, he added many plot inventions that increased the expenditure of time and money (see warg riders in TTT). No, none of the excuses that have been put forth as reasons why Jackson's films deviated so greatly from the book are valid - again, in my opinion.
For the budget issue I meant that the Production maybe forced him to make the film more adventurous so more people that are not Tolkien fans to go and see it.

[Mrs. Maggott]

I would say that that might have been a consideration except for one small point: the reason the backers were willing to sink all that money into the films is the fact that Jackson chose what is probably the most popular book of its genre of the 20th Century! Certainly they would not have been willing to chance all that money on Jackson alone! He doesn't have the reputation in the industry - like Spielburg or Lucas - that would entice someone to back him with that much money if he were choosing to film a little known story or one that was popular only with a small segment of the population. They knew perfectly well that Tolkien's LOTR was a sure draw and people would come to see the films even if they were not all that familiar with the book. There was no need - at least in terms of audience appeal - for Jackson to make the many changes to the characters (for the worse) or to add plot elements that only "muddied the waters" rather than clarify an already complicated plot!

And certainly JRRT provided enough "action" in the story for any cg fanatic. There was no need to make the Battle of Helm's Deep longer than the landing at Normandy! Indeed, as I have already said, Jackson so overused his technical marvels that after awhile they became positively (ho-hum) boring! And "boring" was certainly something that Tolkien never was except perhaps to those too young or too jaded by today's "stunt-a-second" entertainment to appreciate a really well told story.

Indeed, in many interviews in writing and in person, Jackson and his writers were quite clear that the changes they made in both plot and character were the result of their particular view of where the story could be made "better" - at least in their opinion. No wonder Christopher Tolkien didn't want to get involved! For all that Bakshi's animated version was not good, at least the man didn't try to rewrite the story! He let the author speak and limited his involvement to cutting out (and healing over) what had to be removed in order for the film to be a reasonable length. Even so, he only got as far as the end of the Battle of Helm's Deep. Who knows? If at the time he had had similar monetary backing as did Jackson, he might have made two films and done a more creditable job with both of them rather than the "hacked hurry" he made in his only film. Although I found the Bakshi film less than good, at least there were no changes in the characters such those as Jackson made and for that Mr. Bakshi has my gratitude.

[Ol'gaffer]

Hmrph, she's here also complaining. How astounding that a movie she dispises so is the main reason she posts here. Atleast the movies have given her something to write about.

I don't have time right now to adress all points here, but I'll come back later to do so. This is just getting ridicilous, with mrs m considering everyone who doesn't agree with her view on Tolkien to be too dumb or young to appreciate it.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Now I am going to get angry. I haven't before, you know, but now I am. This is for those who aren't listening or who don't wish to listen, but who had better listen now or everything else they post will look as silly as it actually is:

I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT MY OPINION OF THESE FILMS IS ANYTHING MORE - OR LESS - THAN MY OPINION OF THESE FILMS!

Does that need to be repeated - or have you gotten it yet?

I have never put forth agreement with my opinon as a requisite criteria for intelligence and the points I have made, I have made only as an explanation of my opinion and nothing more.

Still less have I ever suggested, hinted, opined, stated, indicated or declared that those who think otherwise are stupid, dumb, ignorant, without taste or worthless and I would deeply appreciate it if people would STOP DRAWING THAT CONCLUSION.

There is no sense of carrying on any discussion on anything if an opinion is considered some sort of personal criticism of anyone who feels differently. Furthermore, such a conclusion smacks of an inability of the individual who feels that way to accept any opinion other than his/her own and who therefore feels the need to accuse the "offender" of personal animosity.

I have made this point before. I will not make it again. Anyone who chooses to be "offended" because I have an opinion differing from their own is free to do so if it makes him/her feel somehow "validated". But frankly, I shall not respond again.

[Ol'gaffer]

Now I am going to get angry. I haven't before, you know, but now I am. This is for those who aren't listening or who don't wish to listen, but who had better listen now or everything else they post will look as silly as it actually is:
I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT MY OPINION OF THESE FILMS IS ANYTHING MORE - OR LESS - THAN MY OPINION OF THESE FILMS!
Does that need to be repeated - or have you gotten it yet?

And atleast I have never said anything else about that other than you should not enter every single thread and state that opinion like it was a declaration of truth.

I have never put forth agreement with my opinon as a requisite criteria for intelligence and the points I have made, I have made only as an explanation of my opinion and nothing more.
Still less have I ever suggested, hinted, opined, stated, indicated or declared that those who think otherwise are stupid, dumb, ignorant, without taste or worthless and I would deeply appreciate it if people would STOP DRAWING THAT CONCLUSION.

No no, you've never said that directly. Very true, only the director and writers are to be called that. Other people who like the movies are "too jaded by modern stunt-a-second films" or "too young" to really understand Tolkiens books, and therefore can like the movies. What kind of conclusions can we then draw from that?

There is no sense of carrying on any discussion on anything if an opinion is considered some sort of personal criticism of anyone who feels differently. Furthermore, such a conclusion smacks of an inability of the individual who feels that way to accept any opinion other than his/her own and who therefore feels the need to accuse the "offender" of personal animosity.

Considering that everytime I've asked you that why must you then post here if you dislike these films so, you've gone on the same tirade as this. It does make your ranting lose it's power after a few times or so.

I have made this point before. I will not make it again. Anyone who chooses to be "offended" because I have an opinion differing from their own is free to do so if it makes him/her feel somehow "validated". But frankly, I shall not respond again.

The only one being offended here is you. Atleast for myself, I can say that I'm just completely lost that how can a person who has no respect whatsoever to the films, spend a large amount of time on the forums, at the FILM SECTION!

All that I've asked is a reason for this, and most of the time I have challenged your views that seem to concentrate on petty issues surrounding the films that you can't seem to let go. You are free to feel as offended as you like about this, but this tirade that occurs every now and then on different parts of the forum, last I recall you had one in the Forsaken Inn, is getting silly.

[Mrs. Maggott]

But what I've stated IS the truth! Or would you be foolish enough to believe that I am lying about my own opinion of something?? That doesn't make any sense at all - but then, that's hardly surprising.

I have not entered "every thread". This thread asked a question to which I responded and I backed up my conclusion with "proof". If you don't want to hear my reasons, skip the post rather than answer it.

And, again, DON'T PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH (POST)! If I say that I have never suggested that anyone who disagrees with me is stupid or somehow unworthy THAT'S WHAT I MEAN! The only person about whom you can speak with any degree of accuracy is yourself. You have neither the right nor the ability to speak for me much less to suggest that I am lying!

And I have every right to make a judgment that what Jackson and his writers did with these films was bad, wrong, use whatever word you wish. Again, I am speaking for myself. I didn't like them, period. I don't HAVE to like them. Nobody can force me to like them. Do I hate Jackson? Hardly. I don't even know him and, besides, hate is a very destructive and powerful force. At the very least it should be directed at someone important. Since Jackson is anything but important to me, I can assure you that not only don't I hate him, I never think about him - or his films - until and unless I see fit to post on a thread which addresses the issue.

And finally, I CAN POST ON ANY DAMNED THREAD I WANT. If you don't like it, you have your "ignore" button. I suggest you save yourself all that effort of responding to what I say - and save both of us a lot of agita. Thank you. :rolleyes:

[Ol'gaffer]

But what I've stated IS the truth! Or would you be foolish enough to believe that I am lying about my own opinion of something?? That doesn't make any sense at all - but then, that's hardly surprising.

I'm not trying to tell you anything. All I'm saying is that sometimes you forget to let people know that it's your opinion but rather make it seem, atleast in my eyes, like your trying to force this certain view down their throats. I bet that again, you will be offended by this and will post another wordy response, but then that's hardly surprising anymore.

I have not entered "every thread". This thread asked a question to which I responded and I backed up my conclusion with "proof". If you don't want to hear my reasons, skip the post rather than answer it.

Not every thread, true. But the majority of threads in which people begin with the intention to talk about how great the movies are, and in every thread we get the same post from you or Joxy, something on the lines of "ah but the films suck at this point, and this, and this" and so forth.

Also, your posts contain no more proof than you allow others to have. Most of the time when another person has posted their 'proof' on a certain aspect of the films, such as statistics on how many people consider the movies to be as good or better as the books, you usually will dismiss them. So if you don't take other's proof seriously, how can we take yours? And I've never said that I don't want to hear your reasons, but rather that I most certainly do want to hear atleast a reasoning that if you have nothing else than negative things to say about a certain topic, and you know that all that it'll bring about is arguments and so forth, why you must persist in hanging around the one area of the forum that has a majority of people who like the movies, and not the other way around?

And, again, DON'T PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH (POST)! If I say that I have never suggested that anyone who disagrees with me is stupid or somehow unworthy THAT'S WHAT I MEAN! The only person about whom you can speak with any degree of accuracy is yourself. You have neither the right nor the ability to speak for me much less to suggest that I am lying!

I never did such thing. I merely suggested that it would be a shame to think that behind all those wordy replies you don't have some kind of sarcasm toward the person you're talking to. Ofcourse I can only speak for myself, and to my eyes I've noticed it on several occations. I'm not saying that you're lying, just saying what I think.

And I have every right to make a judgment that what Jackson and his writers did with these films was bad, wrong, use whatever word you wish. Again, I am speaking for myself. I didn't like them, period. I don't HAVE to like them. Nobody can force me to like them.

No, nobody can. But as long as you persist on hanging around the one part of TTF that concentrates on the films, which I think again is silly. You should be ready for people, including myself, to challenge you to atleast look at them as films and more openly, and most importantly, past the snobbish view that "they tried to make a LotR movie, it can't be good" and just give credit to these movies for what they've achieved. But as long as you get offended and start ranting when this kind of a challenge comes up, it won't be easier for anyone.

Do I hate Jackson? Hardly. I don't even know him and, besides, hate is a very destructive and powerful force. At the very least it should be directed at someone important. Since Jackson is anything but important to me, I can assure you that not only don't I hate him, I never think about him - or his films - until and unless I see fit to post on a thread which addresses the issue.

Which is nearly every thread on the film boards. And to say that you never think about jackson or the films sounds very odd to my ears, considering that I hardly ever see you post anywhere else on TTF than the film boards. If these films are so bad in your eyes, and you simply don't think about them, you spend an awful amount of time trying to convice us about this.

And finally, I CAN POST ON ANY DAMNED THREAD I WANT. If you don't like it, you have your "ignore" button. I suggest you save yourself all that effort of responding to what I say - and save both of us a lot of agita. Thank you. :rolleyes:

True, you can post anywhere. I as well can then post there to marvel at how you still keep on tirading about the same tired old subject, when these movies mean so little to you that you don't even think about them.

[joxy]

....sometimes you forget to let people know that it's your opinion but rather make it seem, at least in my eyes, like your trying to force this certain view down their throats.
....we get the same post from you or Joxy, something on the lines of "ah but the films suck at this point, and this, and this"....
So if you don't take other's proof seriously, how can we take yours?
....why you must persist in hanging around the one area of the forum that has a majority of people who like the movies....
....it would be a shame to think that behind all those wordy replies you don't have some kind of sarcasm toward the person you're talking to.
....as long as you persist on hanging around the one part of TTF that concentrates on the films, which I think again is silly.
....you get offended and start ranting....
....to say that you never think about Jackson or the films sounds very odd to my ears, considering that I hardly ever see you post anywhere else on TTF than the film boards.
....these movies mean so little to you that you don't even think about them.
All of these read to me like the efforts of someone who knows he is fighting a lost cause, is desperate for a way to continue to defend it, and pours out a flood of inconsequential and baseless statements and allegations in attempting that support.
It reminds me of seeing a child who can't have his own way kicking at the furniture in frustration.

There's so much inconsequential and irrelevant stuff in all this that it's difficult to respond, so I've picked out just the above.

Everyone knows that what everyone says is their opinion; it would be ridiculous to add "imho" to everything we say. No-one does any forcing down throats - or if you really think they do so then I have to say that you and others do exactly the same thing.

The films do "suck" (what a horrible expression!) at some points; that's a fact. At other points they're not as good as they could have been; that's an opinion. There's nothing so bad about that; every human being does things wrong sometimes; Jackson is human (isn't he?) and he gets things wrong sometimes. We, like you, point out the good things he does; you refuse to acknowledge the things he does wrong; which of us makes the more sense in that?

We don't offer proofs; you offer statistics; those are not proofs.

You don't know about that majority, but in any case how boring would a thread be if it were totally in support of the films, or anything else, and refused to allow people to mention their faults, or to say they don't like them?

It would be not only a shame, but totally false and a gross injustice, to make accusations of sarcasm.

It is extremely sensible, and useful to those of all shades of opinion, to have all varieties of contributions; to have people like Mrs M, who have balanced opinions, contribute to the film areas.

Mrs M does not "rant".

Mrs M posts in many areas of the forum. Her feelings for Mr Jackson at a personal level are much the same as mine: non-existent. I think very much about the films, and they mean a lot to me, because they are good, and could have been a great deal better.

There seems to be a suggestion that there should be areas of the forum in which only postings containing praise for the films would be allowed, and areas in which only the opposing opinion would be permitted. I think that suggestion is quite wrong. All areas should be open to all shades of opinion.

One thing that has always surprised me is that a student of film should be so committed to praising these films. I would have thought it much more likely, and indeed to be expected, that a student of the media would be more perceptive than us mere audiences, that he would detect points for criticism more readily than we would. Students are meant to learn, among other methods, by observing the mistakes of others. In that respect at least, it appears that you are not going to learn anything at all, as you reject outright the possibility that adverse criticism of these films can reasonably be made and expressed.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Firstly, let me offer my apologies to the members. In my last 2 posts I certainly did "rant", something I do not do (usually). But it is hard to imagine how unimaginably aggravating it is to engage in every attempt at reasonable discourse but to still have to continue to deny (and deny and deny ad nauseum) that I [1] am "putting down" those who have another opinion, [2] "hate" Peter Jackson and [3] should preface every one of my opinions with a lengthy disclaimer that what I am saying is in fact, my opinion. Never mind that much of what I have said and am saying has already been opined countless times by other members - even those who like the films and have no problem with Jackson's "interpretation"! However, it is enough that I post a statement and therefore it should be suspect no matter how obviously accurate it may be!

Indeed, I stopped posting on the film threads for this very reason and recently began posting again - only to have the same silliness start all over again! But that doesn't matter. I should not have lost my temper and engaged in such intemperate posts, albeit my language was not "intemperate" as I don't believe in using profanity (unless I trip over the dog!). I apologize especially to ol' gaffer who prompted the response. I should have either ignored the matter or responded more reasonably. After all, I do have a few years on my fellow member and therefore I should know better.

Again, I am sorry for intemperate responses. :(

[Sephiroth]

I honestly don't see any reason for you to apologize to anyone.

You have written some very in depth posts on why you think the movies fail as entertaining and worthy adaptions of your beloved books. It's pretty obvious that 'Gaffer' either harbours ill feelings for you based on other threads, that he couldn't provide a logical counter to your post or that he did not even read your posts here - because it's perfectly clear by the oft appearing 'í think' and 'to me's in your posts that you're speaking strictly from your own experience and opinions on the matter.

I think we, as humans, could all understand why one would get a little angry when another person completely ignores the points you've made/tried to make and just says something that was realistically based on nothing (unless, like i said earlier, you and him have run into each other in other threads that i do not know).

So, in other words, apology ignored :)

[joxy]

In my last 2 posts I certainly did "rant".
I stand corrected then, in respect of those two postings!
In general though, I stand by my claim: "Mrs M does not rant".

[Mrs. Maggott]

I thank those who are willing to overlook my former two posts. I would wish that we could all discourse on these matters without anyone getting upset (including me!). Frankly, movies hardly seem important enough to generate so much passion - but apparently they do! On both sides of the issue!!

Perhaps, at least for me, it's time for a "reality check" and put this issue where it belongs in the hierarchy of importance and that is below a kitty litter shortage! :p :eek:

[Mrs. Maggott]

Having lain awake last night, my thoughts went to the continuing problem that seems to exist in these threads regarding opinion vs. fact and how members interpret these two matters. And I came upon a possible delineation that might help alleviate some of the hard feelings that seem to arise when criticism of the films is forthcoming. Let me see if it might help "clear the air", so to speak.

1. Fact: Jackson made changes in the characters. No one denies this.
Opinion: Those changes made the characters better/worse/essentially the same.

2. Fact: Jackson made changes in the plot; he added, edited and made changes thereto.
Opinion: Those changes made the plot better/worse/essentially the same.

3. Fact: There are differences - in some cases profound differences - between the book and the films.
Opinion: Those differences don't matter at all to me/affect my enjoyment of the films to some extent/make the films unacceptable to me.

And that's it. It's as simple as the above. Yes, there are undeniable facts but individual responses to those facts are what make the dispute (where dispute arises).

Oh, and there is one last thing: no amount of explanation of why Jackson did this or that nor arguments regarding how his changes really don't make any difference in the tale will convince people who don't like the films to like them. It is a waste of time to try to do so. Like and dislike are subjective matters. Just as you cannot convince someone who having read the book doesn't like it to change their opinion because of Tolkien's excellent writing style, his descriptive language and his lofty ideals, so it is impossible to convince those of us who dislike the films to change our minds because the scenery was beautiful, the actors brilliant and the special effects awesome! I do not deny any of those things - but in the end, they were unimportant.

[Fundin Snowarm]

I think Sean Connery should play Thorin

[Astaldo]

I don't think is a very good idea. Thorin had a typical Dwarvish accent. I don't think Sir Connery could do that accent. But who knows? ;)

[Mrs. Maggott]

I don't know. Connery has a certain humorous element to his nature whereas Thorin was not very self-effacing or given to making jokes, especially at his own expense. He had a rather grand idea of himself and wasn't likely to forget that he was "king". I think you need someone who is much more stern and "in command", someone with whom you wouldn't necessarily want to "crack a joke" to play the King Under the Mountain. Thorin's own speech pattern let you know that he was filled with "self-importance" - and that's not Connery's personality though he probably could play the part of such a person.

[Kelonus]

I would like someone else to play Bilbo, since in The Hobbit, Bilbo is younger. Ian McKellen is not young enough to play Bilbo in The Hobbit, though I did like him as Bilbo in the The Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Sean Connery or James Earl Jones as the voice of Smaug wouldn't be a bad choice.

[Bethelarien]

Ian McKellen is not young enough to play Bilbo in The Hobbit, though I did like him as Bilbo in the The Lord of the Rings Trilogy.
Ian McKellan did not play Bilbo in the Lord of the Rings, he played Gandalf, dear. Ian Holm was the actor who portrayed Bilbo.

And honestly, this thread started out talking about who you would choose to play Bilbo, if you could. Why for the love of God did everyone get so off topic and begin ranting about Jackson and the films again? Good Lord, and I was beginning to wonder why I had left in the first place. Now I know. Enough with the petty bickering, let's stay on topic. Speaking of which...

I had heard a rumor quite some time ago about Johnny Depp playing Bilbo, but I've no doubt that was just a rumour. He's a great actor, but not very Bilbo-esque. So far, all I've heard is that Ian Holm will probably not be able to repeat his performance as the younger Bilbo. As far as Smaug goes, I would say James Earl Jones. I love Sean Connery's voice, but it just doesn't seem....dragonish. Jones's voice is much more deep and resonant, which seems appropriate to Smaug.

[Astaldo]

About the topic issue I think this is the idea of it. Get off the topic. Anyway, I have one video that has some scenes of the Hobbit movie, but I don't know if it is real. It seems to be though and it says in the end: "IN THEATERS 16 DECEMBER 2006". I guess we have to wait a while. :)

[Ol'gaffer]

It's fake. It has scenes from different movies just involving dragons and such. Along with material from the LotR movies. But none of it's real.

[Astaldo]

It's pity. It seemed good. :(

[Morgaphry]

I'm looking forward to Beorn, though I hope they don't go for the Coltrane/Hagrid look. I'm sure they'll be wise enough not to fall into that sort of trap.

My personal choice for Beorn is Jim Carter: He'd look the part ie. Craggy-faced behemoth, and a has voice to match.

If you don't know him by name, the most mainstream film he has appeared in is 'Shakespeare in Love', where he played the actor who played the Nurse.
Other than that I think he has appeared in just about every British film, television show and mini-series for the last fifteen years.

Thanks
Morgaphry

[Corvis]

Bilbo: Ian Holm
Gandalf: Ian Mckellan
Gollum: Andy Serkis
Elrond: Hugo Weaving
Bard: (I said Christian Bale in another post, but I've changed my mind.) Hugh Jackman (I think he'd do a great job as bard).
Smaug: James Earl Jones

James Earl Jones doing the voice of Smaug. That's an awesome idea, I would love to see that.

[Alatar]

The cast for the hobbit should be as close to LotR as possible. I mean could anyone else do as Gandalf? i think not!

And if we see a 100% CG golum and not Serkis, I will hunt them down.

[Gabba]

Gandalf: Ian McKellan
Gollum: Andy Serkins
Elrond: Hugo Weaving
Gloin: John Ryhs Davis (if he will do it, but older, looking different)

BILBO: NOT Ian Holm. Yes he did Bilbo marvelous in LOtR, BUT: He is 74 years old. He is goint to be the main caracter. In the books Frodo is 50 years old, looking 33, in the film he looks like.....18?.....somthing like it. They choos to make him younger. I really hope they dont do the same in the Hobbit, BUT, I have to be realistic and the actor who will play Bilbo will NOT be older than 30-35 years old, probably younger.

[Wonko The Sane]

Besides, I don't think Smaug was Welsh.

That's good then, because neither is Sean Connery! :p

I don't really care about the other parts in the film, but any roles that are in both LotR and The Hobbit I feel should be played by the same actors.

I think Ian Holm was brilliant as Bilbo. One of the only flawless performances in the film, IMO.

And if Bilbo in LotR APPEARS to be the same age as Bilbo in The Hobbit then I don't see why Holm can't reprise the role of Bilbo. They put him in the wig he wore in the scene in the cave with Gollum (I know they gave him an artificial facelift with wig tape for that scene, but there's no reason why they can't do it for the whole film, he'll have the wig on the whole time) instead of in the grey one he wore in Bag End and it will be fine.

If he remains UNCHANGED since the day he found the ring then he HAS to be good enough age/appearance-wise to play Bilbo in The Hobbit.

I just love him. I would love him to continue on as Bilbo.