Elijah Wood Will Return as Frodo in ‘The Hobbit’

Published 3 years ago by

frodo the hobbit Elijah Wood Will Return as Frodo in The Hobbit

Yesterday, Deadline reported that Warner Bros had gained worldwide theatrical distribution rights to Peter Jackson’s two-part adaptation of The Hobbit. They later updated their story to announce that the studio would be financing both installments of the project as well.

Their update also briefly mentioned that negotiations  were underway for Ian McKellen and Andy Serkis to reprise their roles from The Lord of the Rings trilogy – and that Elijah Wood had been approached as well.

Considering that the Frodo Baggins character doesn’t appear in J.R.R. Tolkien’s original Hobbit story, this seemed like an interesting tidbit that warranted further investigation.  Earlier this month, we learned that Orlando Bloom might be returning as Legolas and while his character isn’t featured in The Hobbit either, he still plausibly fits into the timeline. Frodo hasn’t even been born yet when the events of the Hobbit story take place.

TheOneRing.net is now confirming that Wood is definitely on board, but Tolkien purists can relax – they’re not taking any serious liberties with the beloved source material. So how exactly will the character be integrated into the two films? The following could probably be classified as spoilers, so you’ve been warned…

-

-

-

***SPOILER ALERT***

According to TheOneRing:

As readers of “The Hobbit” know, the tale of “The Downfall of The Lord of the Rings” and “The Hobbit or There and Back Again,” are contained in the fictional “Red Book of Westmarch.” In Peter Jackson’s LOTR films, the books are shown on screen and written in by Bilbo and Frodo and handed off to Sam Gamgee. (Not explained on film are Sam’s progeny later having the book and being Wardens of the Westmarch — hence the book’s title.)

The fictional book, and either the telling from it or the reading of it, will establish Frodo in the films experiencing Bilbo’s story. Viewers too learn the tale of ‘The Hobbit’ with a familiar Frodo getting the tale as well.

They confirm that Frodo will be featured in the opening sequence of the first film and to me it sounds like there’s potential for him to routinely pop up at various points throughout the story (à la the Fred Savage/Peter Falk segments in The Princess Bride). As the article mentions, it’s unclear whether Frodo will be the one telling the story or listening to it. Which has me thinking…

frodo bilbo the hobbit Elijah Wood Will Return as Frodo in The Hobbit

If Frodo is simply listening to the tale, perhaps Ian Holm could return as the older Bilbo to further connect The Hobbit to The Lord of the Rings trilogy? Guillermo del Toro was eager to utilize Holm somewhere in the films when he was still involved with the project, so maybe Peter Jackson is receptive to the idea as well.

I suppose some fans might be put off by the idea of Frodo being shoehorned into the plot of The Hobbit, but to me this actually feels like a very organic way of framing the story. If they announce a young Aragorn cameo, I’ll start to get nervous.

I have to say, it’s pretty encouraging to hear how this production is shaping up – casting is nearly complete, Howard Shore is returning to score, and Jackson will be shooting the films in cutting-edge 3D. This is certainly a dramatic departure from where we were a few months ago when the fate of the project was unknown.

The Hobbit: Part 1 is scheduled to reach regular, 3D, and IMAX 3D theaters on December 19th, 2012. Part 2 will arrive a year later in December of 2013.

Source: TheOneRing.net

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:
TAGS: lord of the rings, the hobbit

24 Comments

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.

  1. I think they’re tyring too hard connect the film with LOTR. Yes, I’m quite aware that it’s a prequel, but that doesn’t mean you have to bring characters back (other than Bilbo who is the main character lol). I’m starting to get the feeling it will suffer from that like Lucas’ STAR WARS prequels did. Only difference is that Jackson is a far better (IMO) director, and I have faith he make it work.

  2. Sounds pretty interesting.

  3. yhhhhh frodoo

  4. I agree with Little Monster, by forcing characters from the first movies into the prequels they are falling into the same trap Lucas did. It means rewriting what a lot of Tolkien fans consider sacred. If not written properly it will end up being as bad as the SW prequels.

  5. This really makes no sense. I mean is the LOTR cast calling him up and asking that they fit them in these films somehow? These films are turning out to be rubbish

    • I agree, this absolutely makes no sense. This is probably why Del Toro left.

  6. Ive pretty much said my piece about this in the open discussion, this sounds awful!

    The moment Del Toro left I had a bad feeling about this, hearing news that Orlando Bloom and Elijah Wood, two of the worst actors from Lotr, hardly fills me with any confidence.

    I’m sure I’ll see both parts, but my interest has severely waned.

  7. I think this can only occur if Frodo is involved in flashback or “forward” sequences? Wow. There is no need to try and tie in LOTR with The Hobbit film!

  8. Nothing to worry about, you people are freaking out over nothing, I think Elijah Wood’s appearence in these films is going to be a nice touch, Jackson knows what he’s doing, and as far as Del Toros departure being the worst thing, it was actually the best thing, the guy really is a little overrated. This franchise has been and always will be Jacksons baby.

  9. I have full confidence that Jackson will create nothing short of a masterpiece. He’s Peter Jackson. I would say he’s more than earned some faith and credit. Let’s wait and see.

    • Yes, the same Peter Jackson that filmed the abomination King Kong. How’s your confidence doing now?

  10. While I can see the allure of doing the Hobbit story in this fashion (it being more lighthearted than LotR and akin to a child’s fairytale) I would still prefer Jackson telling the story in a more traditional format.

    I am also not keen on them adding cast members that aren’t and should not be in the story. Spreading the Hobbit over 2 movies ‘should’ give Jackson the ability to tell the tale pretty much in its entirety, unlike LotR where he had to do a LOT of creative hacking and slashing of the source material just to squeeze the base story down to 9+ hrs. Is the story so lacking in material we need to start adding things?

    And I don’t think using Ian Holm in the Hobbit is the best idea either. With Martian Freeman playing Bilbo, having Holm in there would just not look right considering they are not the same people. I even had my reservations about casting for Bilbo but realize we are kind of stuck; Ian Holm is just too old (make-up worked for the Gollum ring sequence but not for a whole movie) and if Tron proved anything it’s that we have not quite reached the other side of the uncanny valley. We are close though, just not close enough for it to be used in the Hobbit. So recasting a real person is the only best choice and I think Freeman will do a fine job but the two together just feels wrong. There needs to be a clean visual break between the two sets of movies for the Bilbo character.

  11. I say we wait and see. I trust Jackson and I really don’t think this is going to be as intrusive as many of you imagine. I don’t believe for one second that he’d force a Frodo cameo on us just for the sake of doing it.

    Same goes for Legolas. Tolkien obviously hadn’t created the character yet when he wrote The Hobbit, but in the time line of these stories Legolas would absolutely be present for some of these events. I don’t think he’s going to be a major character, but his appearance makes sense to me.

    Like I said, when we get a young Aragorn or newborn Gimli I’ll be rolling my eyes. But for now, I don’t think this spells disaster by any means.

    • well said. it still makes me nervous (i too have feared baby gimli’s appearance) but i think if it can be done right, it will work out.

  12. Haven’t they said that the second movie is going to act as a bridging film between the hobbit & fellowship of the ring. Doesn’t that mean that it’s gonna focus on original material that isn’t in either book? Within reason I suppose that gives Jackson free reign to play around with things as he sees fit. That being the case I don’t see it being that big of a stretch for him to feature characters from his rings trilogy.

    • That was the original intention, but they’ve since decided to scrap that idea. The Hobbit will be split into two parts. They’re no longer making a bridge film with material from the appendices.

      • Actually The Hobbit was always meant to be a 2 parter. The originally planned on another “trilogy” (we all know how much Hollywood loves a movie x3) with the bridge movie being the third part. The bridge was dropped but the Hobbit remained 2 parts. I can almost say thank goodness because the bridge would have been a real gamble. Splitting The Hobbit up into 2 parts did make sense since we will get to see the full story that way.

        Of course if the Hobbit does well don’t count out a bridge movie being proposed because you know the movie Execs will want more. I highly doubt (and by highly I mean not a chance in hell) Jackson would be willing to direct it though.

        • I’m fairly certain it was always just two films (http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2007/12/18/28159-what-does-a-sequel-mean/). I could be wrong, but I think a trilogy rumor was spread as an April Fool’s joke.

          I think it was del Toro’s idea to instead split The Hobbit up into two parts instead of making the second film a bridge to LOTR.

          • After further research you are correct…..Of course the fact that a bridge movie was part of the original line-up means it did exist. So there is every possibility that three films were on the discussion table, just not officially announced. It was most likely dropped for legal, financial and time constraints.

  13. Personally I don’t see the need to split the hobbit into two parts unless they were doing the bridging film. The book was far less rich & dense than the lord of the rings trilogy. Its such a simple, straight forward story I think one movie should cover it well enough.

    • i’ve always thought the same. I mean, where could they split the story, and how could that end up giving us two full two hour movies? knowing the LOTR trilogy, they might be three hours a piece, but imo the book just doesn’t have that many pages to fill up such a huge amount of time. That’s why im scared of the roles of legolas and the like in this film, because they have time they need to fill and a cast of their favorites who need lines.

      • As I see it there are two places where it could be broken.
        Either with the finding of the ring deep under the Misty Mountains or when the Dwarfs are in the hands of the Elves of Mirkwood.

  14. I dont know about this but I trust Peter jackson and the gang, so lets see what happens

  15. For me, this news is not good. They should stop trying so hard to “connect” the two. Everyone knows the connection between the hobbit and lotr. I think all this inclusion of lotr characters is the reason it’s stretching out into two movies, sounds like a money thing. This is very discouraging.