Viggo talks the Hobbit (and LotR)

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 5:22 pm

I've said before that I think there would be good reason to show Frodo's adoption by Bilbo, if it could be made to flow naturally with the rest of the second film. It would work within the framing story idea Wampus suggested.

Without that bit of the story, we leave Bilbo alone at Bag End at the end of the second Hobbit film, and then find at the beginning of FotR that he's adopted a previously unmentioned young relative. Tolkien explained it in the book; I don't think it would be a bad thing for the films to show it (if, as I said, it can be made to work with the other material).

Wed Feb 04, 2009 5:27 pm

That's the fundamental problem, right there. I just don't see how making a film that is half the ending of The Hobbit and half bridge material doesn't come across as cobbled together.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 5:39 pm

I think it would far more than half the end of the Hobbit, and some of the "bridge material" would be woven into that part of the film rather than being tagged onto the end. The Frodo adoption story is the only one that's many years later, and if they used Ian Holm as an older Bilbo to frame the story, a young Frodo listening would fit in pretty naturally.

As much as I would like to see my namesake on screen, that much detail wouldn't be necessary. I don't see why it could not be handled with 60 seconds of dialogue.

Post by **WampusCat** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 5:57 pm

What, 60 seconds of dialogue when you could have a traumatic drowning scene? You don't have much of a future in Hollywood, Prim.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 6:04 pm

I know—how I would love to die gloriously on screen in a Hobbit film!

Perhaps the rumors that Drogo pushed me and I pulled him in after me would turn out to be true.

However, I'd hope the filmmaker's instincts would be better than to give something so minor that much weight.

Post by **WampusCat** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 6:22 pm

Primula Baggins wrote:... that much weight.

Drogo's, of course.

Post by **solicitr** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 6:27 pm

"Bridge material" =fanfic. Bah.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 6:35 pm

Not necessarily fanfic—there is some rather detailed stuff in the Appendices. It depends on what they choose to show. It sounds to me as if GdT is de-emphasizing this part of the second film.

Post by **Alatar** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 6:44 pm

I have to admit to not a little amusement at all this. We've been here before people...

Its highly unlikely they'll make an absolute travesty, and completely impossible that it'll be perfect!

Really, in Movie-verse, is there anything, ANYTHING to suggest that Aragorn couldn't have been in his 30s or 40s at the time of Bilbo's quest? He's what, 87 in Two Towers? We see Bilbo looking fairly old in the prologue, but no age is mentioned. There's no mention of 17 years between Bilbo's departure and Frodo's. For average Joe Public, its absolutely believable that a young looking Aragorn could meet Arwen in the timeline of The Hobbit.

As for where Arwen was? She could have been in Dol Guldor dancing for the Necromancer for all we know in Movie-verse. The Ents decided wrong... Faramir took Frodo to Osgiliath... Frodo sent Sam home...

I'm pretty sure the screenwriters aren't going to feel constrained by a footnote in the Appendices about Arwen hanging round Lothlórien.

Post by **solicitr** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 6:55 pm

I agree that movie-verse is not the same as Tolkien-verse.

But I don't have to like it.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 7:14 pm

Of course you do. Didn't you get the memo?

Post by **Dave_LF** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 8:41 pm

Start the movie with a stodgy Bilbo refusing to adopt his rambunctious nephew because he's a proper gentlemen who wants nothing to do with his uncouth relations. At the end, we find him of a different mind. Character arc, baby!

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:54 pm

How can he have a character arc when the whole story happened decades ago?

Unless he has one of those terrible "At last I understand what it all meant!" moments.

Post by **Dave_LF** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:14 pm

It would require another timeline adjustment such that..erm..."you" drown just before Bilbo sets out and the adoption happens just after he gets back. Heresy, I know; but it makes storytelling sense and sounds like something a screenwriter would do.

Post by **River** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 1:54 am

Whose to say they won't jack with the timeline to make for an older Aragorn? Frodo and Sam seemed way younger in the movies than they were in the books, for example. However, if they decide to respect the books' timeline, we can rest easy about a 10 year-old Estel and Arwen meeting...she was in Lothlórien at the time.

Post by **ToshoftheWuffingas** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 2:21 am

Aragorn as a Bergil-substitute?

Post by **Alatar** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 10:31 am

Alatar wrote:I have to admit to not a little amusement at all this. We've been here before people...

Its highly unlikely they'll make an absolute travesty, and completely impossible that it'll be perfect!

Really, in Movie-verse, is there anything, ANYTHING to suggest that Aragorn couldn't have been in his 30s or 40s at the time of Bilbo's quest? He's what, 87 in Two Towers? We see Bilbo looking fairly old in the prologue, but no age is mentioned. There's no mention of 17 years between Bilbo's departure and Frodo's. For average Joe Public, its absolutely believable that a young looking Aragorn could meet Arwen in the timeline of The Hobbit.

As for where Arwen was? She could have been in Dol Guldor dancing for the Necromancer for all we know in Movie-verse. The Ents decided wrong... Faramir took Frodo to Osgiliath... Frodo sent Sam home...

I'm pretty sure the screenwriters aren't going to feel constrained by a footnote in the Appendices about Arwen hanging round Lothlórien.

Post by **Pearly Di** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 2:19 pm

Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote:That's the fundamental problem, right there. I just don't see how making a film that is half the ending of The Hobbit and half bridge material doesn't come across as cobbled together.

I agree with the V-Man.

Alatar wrote:I have to admit to not a little amusement at all this. We've been here before people...

Its highly unlikely they'll make an absolute travesty, and completely impossible that it'll be perfect!

Really, in Movie-verse, is there anything, ANYTHING to suggest that Aragorn couldn't have been in his 30s or 40s at the time of Bilbo's quest? He's what, 87 in Two Towers? We see Bilbo looking fairly old in the prologue, but no age is mentioned. There's no mention of 17 years between Bilbo's departure and Frodo's. For average Joe Public, its absolutely believable that a young looking Aragorn could meet Arwen in the timeline of The Hobbit.

As for where Arwen was? She could have been in Dol Guldor dancing for the Necromancer for all we know in Movie-verse. The Ents decided wrong... Faramir took Frodo to Osgiliath... Frodo sent Sam home...

I'm pretty sure the screenwriters aren't going to feel constrained by a footnote in the Appendices about Arwen hanging round Lothlórien.

I also agree with Al.

What can I say? I'm a typical INFP. ('See, it could be like this ... or it could be like THAT ... and I can see both points of view ... and I can see both sides so I can't commit to one or the other.')

Thu Feb 05, 2009 4:12 pm

Primula Baggins wrote:How can he have a character arc when the whole story happened decades ago? Unless he has one of those terrible "At last I understand what it all meant!" moments.

You mean one of those "I think at last we understand each other, Frodo Baggins" moments?

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 4:19 pm

Never liked that one, either. <sniff>