Bilbo in Film 2?

[Alatar]

When its a fact- You'll hear it from me first- and, very likely, right here.

Bilbo is an incredibly dificult and taxing part to cast, physically exhausting- appearing in every scene of the HOBBIT film and a large portion of the second and exposed to elements, brutal travelling, inclement scheduling, etc, etc There's no two ways about it-

Keep that in mind.

Yr Obt Svt

GDT

Well, thats an eye-opener and no mistake!

[Frelga]

There goes my theory of an Aragorn sprequel. If the first movie is The Hobbit, what's Bilbo doing in the second?

[Primula Baggins]

I got the impression from the "20 questions" chat that Bilbo, old Bilbo, might be narrating both films. In which case they might show him beginning his book (or is The Hobbit considered to be part of an earlier book, or one not even written by Bilbo?). Somebody writing in a book while a voice narrates is a pretty common filmic device.

I do think they have to explain how Frodo ends up with Bilbo at the beginning of LotR—otherwise in the context of the five films Frodo appears from nowhere, without explanation. That story might involve several scenes.

[solicitr]

Except that if that's what's contemplated, there would be no problem with Either Holm's age or his physical limitations. GdT has said that the role is 'strenuous.'

[Primula Baggins]

Maybe Bilbo saves 12-year-old Frodo from drowning. It's some years or even decades after that, isn't it, that Bilbo actually adopts Frodo?

[Dave_LF]

If Holm is involved, it will likely be in little more than a narrative capacity, with the strenuous scenes going to "young Bilbo" (whoever that is). I've been thinking/hoping that Gandalf will be the star of the second film--mostly since I don't see any other way to do it, but if young-Bilbo is going to feature in that one more than a little, maybe that idea has to go out the window. Unless we're going to be revisiting many of the same scenes from Gandalf's perspective or something.

[kams]

I think Bilbo should be cast without too much concern for Ian Holmes' characterization in LOTR. Just get a good actor.

an aside:
When Ewan MacGregor was cast for the part of Obi-wan Kenobi, my first reaction was that he didn't LOOK like Alec Guiness. However Ewan did study Alec's performances, especially in Star Wars, and worked to imitate the character. But I wouldn't have known it if I didn't see a DVD extra on the subject.

After three prequel movies, I think it didn't matter whether Ewan did or didn't make a good young Obi-wan. He played a different character with the same name. The way the character was developed in the prequels (firey student, investigator, "older brother" figure to Anakin) never touched on who Obi-wan was in the following three (sage, father figure, connection to the past).

I watched the prequels and judged the young Obi-wan character without thinking much of the other movies. (I thought Ewan did a fine job.)

Same with the Hobbit. Bilbo is flustered, amiable, curious, occupied with food and eventually is level-headed under pressure, durable under hardships, calculating but for the better good and we see his adventure through his eyes.

In LOTR he was amiable and occupied with food, but more importantly his role was the keeper of something old, a connection with the past and a bit manipulative (disappearing act). He was the catalyst for Frodo's mithril shirt. He conveyed how keeping the Ring would corrupt one's mind. In the Hobbit, the keeper of something old is Gollum's role.


So, I propose Charlie Cox as Bilbo for the Hobbit. I think he did a good job as a wide-eyed inquisitive youth in Stardust. Tristan sort of goes through the same arc in Stardust as Bilbo goes through in the Hobbit.

[Alatar]

From TORN

The first thing that becomes clear when you lay out the cards its that there are -no doubt- two films in here. The second one is that the characters and their functions in the narrative (including Beorn) are very specific and thematically relevant.

Its very much starting to look like a 2 Part Hobbit with White Council stuff added.

[Pearly Di]

Well ... that all sounds good to me.

Seriously, I don't really care what GDT does. It all sounds good.

I can't even remember when this jolly film is coming out, you know.

I love how he signs himself Yr Obt Svt.

[Holbytla]

I am betting on part one ending with the death of Smaug. Part two will be BO5A and the gap up until the start of LOTR.

[kams]

Still having doubts about taking the simpler, direct story of the Hobbit and puffing it out into two movies.

I'll have to see it to believe it.

But believe it, Ill see it

[Alatar]

In answer to questions about whether GDT was talking about The Hobbit + Appendices:

Well- As I said before, EVEN when you lay out the cards fro the story beats contained within the book (before even considering any apendix material) the work is enormous and encompasses more than one film. That's why we are thinking of the TWO INSTALLMENTS as parts of a single NARRATIVE. That's why I keep putting down the use of a "bridge" film (posited initially). I think the concept as such is not relevant anymore. I believe that the narrative and characters are rich enough to fit in TWO films.

From Japan (then NZ)

GDT

Guillermo here is referring to "Beat cards" which are apparently moments and climaxes in the films that make up the skeleton around which the screenplay is written. It seems the make up cards of all of these points and then lay them out in different configurations to get an overall look at the "shape" of the movie.

What GDT is saying is that there's a lot more story in The Hobbit than is apparent from its length. In other words, more happens than in a similar length novel written more conventionally. Therefore, to get all that story onscreen will require more than one film. Note, he doesn't say it would require 2 films, which leads me back to believing he will add in White Council material to keep it thematically "The Hobbit" while using the Saruman/Gandalf connection to tie back into LotR.

Or so I hope anyway!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Al, I tend to agree with you. Further, despite GdT's previous comment, I think Smaug's death will actually be towards the beginning of the second film, and that the first film will end with the climatic confrontation between Bilbo and Smaug. I think there will be comparatively little added in from the appendices (and very little invented material, relative to what we all thought).

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Here is the strongest indication that I have seen yet that the idea of a "bridge film" has been abandoned and replaced with a two-part Hobbit. From iF Magazine:

iF: You’re linking it into the first LORD OF THE RINGS movie – I read that the last part of the second film would include material not in the book, but would link it more fully to the first LORD film.

DEL TORO: We’re not doing that. That was spoken about early on, as I said, we stopped talking about in terms of a bridge film, it’s a single film. We said, “we’re talking about a ‘film’ and we’re talking about two chapters of a film or two episodes.”

http://ifmagazine.com/new.asp?article=7124

[River]

What GDT is saying is that there's a lot more story in The Hobbit than is apparent from its length. In other words, more happens than in a similar length novel written more conventionally. Therefore, to get all that story onscreen will require more than one film. Note, he doesn't say it would require 2 films, which leads me back to believing he will add in White Council material to keep it thematically "The Hobbit" while using the Saruman/Gandalf connection to tie back into LotR.

Or so I hope anyway!

I hope so too. Just to reinforce the greater context of The Hobbit.

When you think about it, he's right. There is A LOT that happens in The Hobbit. They encounter trolls before they even make it to Rivendell. In the Misty Mountains, Bilbo finds The Ring; they escape the mountains straight into that firey mess with wolves and eagles and then there's Beorn, the spider fight crossing Mirkwood, and the capture and escape. Maybe Legolas will make a cameo? It would be especially fun if he's one of the Elves that captures the Dwarves, just to really drive home how unusual his eventual friendship with Gimli is. After all that, and the barrel ride to Laketown, they have a recovery period and then there's the whole Smaug thing followed by the Battle of Five Armies. Tolkien crammed all that into one book, but think about how that plays out visually and GDT has a point. If you want to include all that action, do the needed world-building, and develop characters, you probably do need to break it. And the way Alatar's split ti would work well, because Smaug's fall is a good, climactic note to end on and the BO5A and the White Council business really belong together anyway.

[Primula Baggins]

I hope they'll weave in any "additional material" throughout, in a way that enriches both films. The Hobbit is very full of action, but much of it takes place in parts of Middle-earth that are barely mentioned in LotR, so it feels a little . . . orthogonal? . . . to the better-known story. Giving it a context in which we also see a few familiar settings and a few familiar characters could make the five films feel much more like one.

I do hope they don't do overkill with the LotR characters—that the ones we see have reasons to be there other than to pull us out of a scene with a distracting cameo. If there's no story for them to be part of, if they're just a pretty face (I'm looking at you, Legolas ), they're better left out.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Ironically, though, Legolas has the best reason to be there of any of them. The idea of a young Aragorn at Rivendell really doesn't make sense (and there is no way that Viggo could play the character that young, even taking into consideration the changed timeline in the films). Arwen is supposed to be in Lothlórien during that time period. Gimli obviously has no role to play. But it makes perfect sense for Legolas to be with his father in Mirkwood.

I do think that additional material will be added in to both films, but not too much of it. That is why I said that I think that the first film will end before Smaug's death. Otherwise the films will be too unbalanced. And anyway I think that Bilbo's confrontation with Smaug makes a much better climax to the film that Smaug's being killed by an ancilliary character (and no, I don't think there is any chance that GdT will have someone other than Bard kill Smaug).

[Primula Baggins]

He has a reason to be there in that his presence fits the history of Middle-earth. He does not have a story reason to be there. He, Legolas, doesn't do anything in the story and is not a named presence in the book. So unless something like that is invented for him in the film, he would literally just be "a pretty face" in the background, and a distracting one.

[vison]

*is happy*

I don't even like The Hobbit very much and I'm starting to get the tiniest bit, you know, interested . . . .

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I don't particularly think that Orlando is all that "pretty". But I do understand your point.