ROTTEN TOMATOES: Elijah Wood: Once a Frodo, Always a Frodo Comments

Elijah Wood: Once a Frodo, Always a Frodo

by Jeff Giles | January 14, 2008

Summary

Count Elijah Wood as one of the millions excited about the news of Peter Jackson's involvement in those planned Hobbit films -- and another member of the Lord of the Rings cast who's game for a return to Middle-earth. Back to Article

(1-43 of 43 posts) | Reply

Gimy writes:
on Jan 14 2008 05:30 AM

that does kinda suck that he and sean astin won't be in it. maybe we can see why they didn't give into temptation and never hooked up. thank god we actually have quality movies on the way...and not a remake...phew...

ps. thank you San Diego for beating the VASTLY overrated Colts...makes my day going into work sooo much better...

(Reply to this)

Elixor writes:
on Jan 14 2008 05:43 AM

We'll see how well Jackson pulls off The Hobbit. It's a story of a different tone to Lord of the Rings. I think he'll be up for the task. There should be no reason for him not to stick closer to the book than the LoTR movies did to theirs.

(Reply to this)

southwick writes:
on Jan 14 2008 06:37 AM

I am still confused as to why they are going to try and "write" a second story.
I mean its one thing to take from Tolkien's work, seems entirely another thing to try and write an entirely new story.

(Reply to this)

Weed17 writes:
on Jan 14 2008 06:40 AM

hark.. here comes gollum yet again... lol ... im sad theres gonna b no aragorn ...

(Reply to this)

minderbinder writes:
on Jan 14 2008 06:43 AM

Jackson isn't directing the hobbit, and probably not writing it either, just producing it.

He'll keep an eye on things to make sure they don't get too far afield, but it will be largely up to someone else to pull off.

(Reply to this)

Shatter24 writes:
on Jan 14 2008 06:44 AM

There may very well be an Aragorn in The Hobbit briefly (they do go through Rivendell and that's where Aragorn is) and maybe he'll get a larger part in the second film (there is a lot going on behind the scenes w/ his character).

(Reply to this)

dahluzz writes:
on Jan 14 2008 06:52 AM

In reply to this comment (#1466608)
yeah this was the part that confused me when it was first announced that jackson was on as producer. i could see the hobbit being split into two films, breaking after mirkwood forest. The first part would be more of an introduction and exhibition (a la LOTR fellowship) while the part 2 would see things coming to a head, eventually closing with the final huge battle (more like LOTR Return).

But to cram all of the hobbit into one movie and then create a new story in order to make a second film? That doesn't sound right at all.

(Reply to this)

DarthRage writes:
on Jan 14 2008 06:53 AM

Aragorn/Strider was not in "The Hobbit", nor was Frodo or Sam....we will see Gimli's and Legolas's fathers, as they travel with Bilbo....also, the battle of the five armies at the end should be quite the battle. Smaug should be great too.

(Reply to this)

Weed17 writes:
on Jan 14 2008 06:57 AM

i never quite liked bilbo in the lord of the rings ... sigh ... hvnt read the hobbit so i dunno ... if jackson DIRECTS it .. i think its gonna b one heck of a movie tho ....

(Reply to this)

dennischu22 writes:
on Jan 14 2008 07:07 AM

I think that The Hobbit has a lot of potential to be a successful addition to the Lord of the Rings franchise. Peter Jackson did a fantastic job with the LoTR trilogy, and I think he'll do great with this film as well.

(Reply to this)

walkingdead09 writes:
on Jan 14 2008 07:15 AM

peter jackson is a p u s s y

(Reply to this)

PolishBear writes:
on Jan 14 2008 07:17 AM

I would be THRILLED to see Peter Jackson's adaptation of "The Hobbit" .... but by the time he gets started filming it, don't you think Ian Holm might be just a BIT too old to play the role of Bilbo Baggins?

(Reply to this)

NyCkoS PiCkoS writes:
on Jan 14 2008 08:09 AM

I think that Peter Jackson won't create, just from himself and Fran, a Tale about Hobbits who fish, drink, and eat all day long. Because after all, this is what Bilbo Baggins do in those "60 years of waiting".

I think Peter Jackson loves Tolkien enough to create a Genova to all those movies. This genova is The Silmarillion, and it's GREAT!!! It would look and sound like the first 5 minutes of Fellowship of the Ring, but for 2-3 hours long! Very epic, very tragic, very
mythologic.

I don't see any other way to make two other great movies !

(Reply to this)

TombstoneLawDog writes:
on Jan 14 2008 08:23 AM

Hobbit is WAY too much story for one movie. 've a bad feeling about this...

(Reply to this)

zgberg writes:
on Jan 14 2008 09:19 AM

I think the second movie will be segue into the LOTR films by showing us what happens to Gandalf, Gollum, Saruman, Sauron... I am betting that it all holds true to the Middle Earth canon - namely, the Silmarillion and Lost Tales.

I'm excited!!!!!!!

(Reply to this)

fullmetalnek writes:
on Jan 14 2008 09:26 AM

There shouldn't be a second film unless they are splitting The Hobit in two.

(Reply to this)

eventide writes:
on Jan 14 2008 09:28 AM

In reply to this comment (#1466733)
PJ is a '*****' That has more more money than your entire family tree.

(Reply to this)

dougwall10 writes:
on Jan 14 2008 09:43 AM

Those movies sucked I hope he doesn%u2019t screw up the hobbit

(Reply to this)

Warheart1188 writes:
on Jan 14 2008 09:48 AM

PJ did an amazing job with LOTR, I know "The Hobbit" will be great but I'm concerned with the other film.

(Reply to this)

dougwall10 writes:
on Jan 14 2008 10:03 AM

PJ what is he your uncle he should be kicked in the balls for what he did to the lord of the rings books and look what he did to King Kong Peter Jackson is a *** clown that should not be hired to direct a porno

(Reply to this)

Slipperypick writes:
on Jan 14 2008 10:10 AM

Making two films is nothing but a money-grubbing ploy. The Hobbit is the perfect length for a 2-3 hour epic movie, and Peter Jackson should keep his hands off the story. What he did to the Lord of the Rings was pretty insulting to the memory of Tolkien. It's beyond me why he felt the need to change Faramir's character, for instance. And why does Aragorn basically die in the Two Towers? These were decisions not made in the spirit of placing an epic novel into a 2-3 movie but rather "improvements" that Jackson and his writer/partner figured they could make to a story that needs no improvement, thank you very much.

(Reply to this)

davenav writes:
on Jan 14 2008 10:32 AM

I didn't like Kong, but his adaptation of LoTR was fantastic. Why? Because he and his writers were able to delve into the myriad appendices, letters, and unfinished stories that fill the Tolkein library.

Tolkein expanded, and expounded upon it extensively, and I'm grateful that they looked outside of the books for additional material to include in the trilogy.

Undoubtedly, this is what they will do with The Hobbit. The vast history of Tolkein's Middle Earth provides plenty to fill two films, while keeping it on one big story arc.

(Reply to this)

dracus writes:
on Jan 14 2008 10:36 AM

In reply to this comment (#1467849)

Well, in response to anyone who feels Jackson in an ***hole or that he insulted Tolkien%u2019s memory in anyway ' Bah, Humbug! I hope he gets the chance to really upset you all by using his creativity and imagination by actually writing all new material for the second part of the Hobbit movie. Hell, after the masterful job that he did with the almost impossible job of adapting LOTR's, he deserves a shot at writing new material

(Reply to this)

dracus writes:
on Jan 14 2008 10:37 AM

Well, in response to anyone who feels Jackson in an ***hole or that he insulted Tolkiens memory in anyway ' Bah, Humbug! I hope he gets the chance to really upset you all by using his creativity and imagination by actually writing all new material for the second part of the Hobbit movie. Hell, after the masterful job that he did with the almost impossible job of adapting LOTR's, he deserves a shot at writing new material

(Reply to this)

dougwall10 writes:
on Jan 14 2008 10:59 AM

writing new material Tolkien has been dead for 34 years Jackson should not be f-ing with his material that bull **** he should just write his own story and call it short men with hair on their toes walking in the woods F Jackson and all his homo fans that thought those movies were great

(Reply to this)

rt_hire_me writes:
on Jan 14 2008 03:13 PM

In order to be true to Tolkien, PJ should have made his adaptation way more ponderous and boring. Real boring. Oh yeah, more ent poetry, and more scenes with Sam and Frodo dragging themselves around with Frodo dreaming of the smell of grass back in the Shire. Spare me! PJ's LOTR rocked.

(Reply to this)

rt_hire_me writes:
on Jan 14 2008 03:16 PM

And he better be cutting a lot of the boring crap out of Lovely Bones, though that would leave only about twenty minutes of screenplay. Of course, with Jackson's use of slow-motion, he could drag it out to maybe half and hour.

(Reply to this)

ManofStee1 writes:
on Jan 14 2008 03:16 PM

In reply to this comment (#1467841)
Temper, temper.

That said, Jackson is a very accomplished director who deserves all the praise he gets. Why do you have a problem with LOTR?

(Reply to this)

Calishands writes:
on Jan 14 2008 06:56 PM

I don't understand why so many people are upset with the fact that there may be two movies! For one thing complaining before the finished product is out is really silly. Any Tolkien fan that enjoyed Peter and Frans' vision for the LOTR series should be hesitant yet excited. The Story of the Hobbit is quite different from the LOTR series (more of a child%u2019s fairy tale) and Elijah pointed out it will take place in the %u201Csame world%u201D. I am sure PJ will not butcher the series Especially being a devout Tolkien fan as he is. The first movie according to sources will focus on the tale of the Hobbit. While the 2nd movie, which may not have been a direct adaptation of a piece of literature to film, will still be based on the Tolkien World (It will be based on the The Similarion, Unfinished tales, etc.). For one thing the movies were based on Jackson%u2019s interpretation of the books. Not necessarily a direct literal adaptation of them. So to denounce something before it has even finished is ridicules. I am still skeptical at the fact that Jackson is not directing though! My question is why does he allow someone else to direct a film? That alone puts his confidence in the film in question! If he directed I think my confidence in the project would increase along with the likelihood of a quality finished product similar to that of the LOTR series. Hey if it fails they can always remake it%u2026Look at the Hulk for example (It damn well better not though).

(Reply to this)

Alexaion writes:
on Jan 14 2008 07:49 PM

I would like to point out to any of those that don't know, and that feel inclined to criticise movie maker's attempts to interpolate the story... that was, in fact, Tolkien's original dream for the stories he wrote. He says in a certain letter (which stands at the introduction to my version of the Silmarillion) that his intention was to write stories, some detailed, and some vague sketeches, and leave room for others to fill in with art and music and drama. He later considered that absurd, seemingly because it appeared that no one but he cared for most of his writing, but it seems that original dream of his is coming to fruition. As such, I would recommend people not complain if there is interpolation... it would have been within the understanding and to the intent of Tolkien. The only thing I can think of that he would have been concerned with is the more whimsical portrayal of the Elves, but that is entirely different matter.

That said, what would be done for the span in between is, in fact, Tolkien's. It isn't written in novel form, but there are a few existing parts that could provide good story elements. Nonetheless, as one person pointed out, and I am inclined to agree with them, by far the best would be the Silmarillion. Of course, realistically speaking, the Silmarillion proper could never be filmed. It is, dramatically speaking, impossible. Not for scale or the like, but because it simply covers far too much to make a proper movie out of (you simply cannot skip from talking about the Elves waking up, to them marching West, to ten thousand years later when they abandon the West, and so on and so forth, in any good dramatic succession.) Instead, it would be likely, were it ever done, that a single powerful story would be told. And within the framework of the Silmarillion two stand out that could be movies in their own right: the tale of Beren and Luthien, and the Children of Hurin. Either of these could be made into a movie, conveying the sense of the Silmarillion. The latter could show, after the fashion of introduction, the battle of Unnumbered Tears, where you have the thousand Balrogs fighting. Anyway, that would be a long way off, if ever. But I, for one, would be interested in seeing, filmwise, such majestic figures as Feanor, Maedhros, and the rest of the Noldor, in the height of their power, contesting Sauron's old master Morgoth.

But whether or not this is ever done is entirely uncertain. I should hope so, but the Silmarillion does not have the fan base that Lord of the Rings does, though in many ways it is far superiour (if more difficult... in the same way that any mythology is difficult and complex.) Speaking entirely on the basis of money making, I don't suppose it would be worth it for the studios to make such a film.

(Reply to this)

Daniel Aaron writes:
on Jan 14 2008 09:02 PM

the battle with smog will be cool plus the spiders even though i probubly wont watch that scean and the battle at the end were the three armies fight should be epic

(Reply to this)

musiclc writes:
on Jan 14 2008 11:25 PM

I don't get the whole "the hobbit has a different tone" complaints. It's the same world, and the movies should maintain the seriousness/passion/wonder/humor that the LOTR movies had.

For an extreme example, if the same producers made a new Law and Order episode with a script based on a napkin scribble, it would still exist in that same world/feel - regardless of the scripts tone. They're not going to break out into song ala cop rock...

(Reply to this)

Holly Jolly writes:
on Jan 14 2008 11:32 PM

I don't know...it will be quite hard to top the animated Hobbit. :)

(Reply to this)

Elixor writes:
on Jan 15 2008 11:47 AM

I love the Silmarillion and it should never be put into movie form. It will just get too screwed up, too much stuff that should remain in its book form.

musiclc, the tone of The Hobbit is different in a way similar to how the animated Hobbit is different to the LoTR movies. Not that extreme, but the book is a different perspective with a lighter feel to the same world.

I sympathize with Dougwall, but I'm not quite as irrate. Jackson and his team of writers didn't need to preserve all the songs, poetry, and other aspects of the books that would be boring in movie form (although it's a big part of the books), but they did change lines around, having certain characters speak other character's lines, and had non-sensical changes such as Arwen casting the spell at the River, or having the Elves show up at Helm's Deep, etc, etc ... Changes to the source material that don't just fail to give the books their due justice, but are uneeded changes that the screenwriters disrespect (through a lack of understanding of the source material and/or apparent arrogance in thinking that their ideas or 'improvements' were better for the movie) Tokien's work.

(Reply to this)

Floor Man writes:
on Jan 18 2008 07:35 PM

I really hope Jackson is at least *involved* in the writing...that's one of the (many) key aspects of why the LotR trilogy was so good. I hope, I hope, I hope.... First, though, the strike would need to end. Hmmm.

(Reply to this)

Brad 3000 writes:
on Jan 18 2008 08:23 PM

In reply to this comment (#1467841)
At least Peter Jackson knows about grammar and punctuation.

(Reply to this)

GreatDecay writes:
on Jan 18 2008 08:26 PM

i HIGHLY doubt Ian Holm will be cast as Bilbo. Bilbo is supposed to be half the age he was in LOTR and Ian doesn't seems like a good choice as a dagger swinging hero.

(Reply to this)

Rorshack writes:
on Jan 19 2008 09:21 AM

Try reading the entire article kids.

It doesn't say anything about Frodo being in The Hobbit. It does have Elijah Wood speculating on the idea but as far as he knows thats not the case.

If Jackson could make The Fellowship of the Ring one movie I'm sure he can do the same with The Hobbit.

(Reply to this)

thethunder writes:
on Jan 19 2008 02:20 PM

In reply to this comment (#1488299)
Holm was made up to look older in the film, and even in The Hobbit, Holm was relatively middle-aged, being 51 years old. And you have to remember, Bilbo wasn't really the swordy type either, he was more timid, and cautious...which fits Holm's mannerism perfectly.

(Reply to this)

Rorshack writes:
on Jan 19 2008 09:58 PM

Too bad Dudley Moore isn't around anymore he would've been a great Bilbo Baggins :)

(Reply to this)

magprime writes:
on Jan 20 2008 01:24 AM

In reply to this comment (#1466608)
Actually Tolkien wrote many stories and novellas in his liftetime, many regarding Middle-Earth, so who's to say its not a story involving it as well. Some of the backstory that leads to Sauron's rise and fall(s) would be a sweet kinda prequel. Lots of stuff from Tolkiens work could be adapted to film, just hope PJ can stay close to the books as possible, tough to do since the movie would be like 15 hours long =P

(Reply to this)

cdarlington1 writes:
on Jan 29 2008 10:50 AM

In reply to this comment (#1467841)
hey doug...go lick your ***hole you ********!

(Reply to this)

Stanley QBrick writes:
on Jan 31 2008 12:05 PM

Get your facts straight fellows: The Hobbit will be divided in two movies.
Jackson will only produce, but then again so did Tobber directed Portugeist when we know it was Spielberg who did it.

My main concern is will Howard Shore return to compose the music? Remember that he and Peter had a bitter good bye of King Kong proportion. If worse comes to shove they will use another composer and only use pieces of Shore music for signature and main theme as they did with Jurasic Park.

Whatever happens i know the two films will have the name "Peter Jackson's The Hobbit" It will make lot$ and lot$ of... happy fans.
PS I smell few cameos.

(Reply to this)

Related Links

The Hobbit

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links