Gollum

R

Rodu

Rivendell
How much screen time will he get? Just a cameo in Riddles in the Dark, or will it be expanded?
 
the defunct bridge film. If this is the case it will probably be him coming out from the cave to search for the ring
 
that would be my guess. After the credits are finished, one brief scene of Gollum crawling out of the cave, covering his eyes from the sun/moon.
 
that if they are expanding his role beyond 'Riddles in the Dark' then it will be significantly more than a hidden post credits scene. My worry is all the stuff about hunting Gollum appears in UT. The mentions of it in LOTR Appendices are too brief to have a full narrative thread made out of them. So, either they get the rights to specific bits of UT (which I doubt CT is gonna let happen) or they start making stuff up. If that happens, that won't be good.
 
As Kangi said, that Reddit bloke implied this.

I think it makes sense too in a movie perspective... I mean who does not want more of the talents of Andy Serkis? [laugh]
 
The bridge film may be defunct, but I think we'll see at least some of it in the Hobbit part 2. I say this because they've cast Drogo. There is no mention of Drogo in the three existing films, so the only way I can see them fitting him in is if we see Frodo at some point. If the film ends before Frodo is born, how will the audience know who Drogo is?

So, I forsee some bridging at least, of the time between Bilbo returning to the Shire and the start of FOTR.
 
being in the Cast worries me because the only way they can possibly have him in there is by showing Primula (I think thats Frodo's mother) which is just wrong. Unless they are a cameo at the auction which I doubt.
 
I can think of several ways that Drogo and or Primula could be written into the script at an early point as well as at the end without Frodo being involved.
 
They will probably make him more of a villan than he was in TH. It could be better or worse to the story I think. It just depends on how they do it.
 
Bottom line is Drogo or Primula have roles in TH book and there is no reason for them to have. At least with Legolas and Galadriel have roles in surrounding events. Drogo doesn't. When I said "possible" I meant "possible without screwing over the story"
 
For all we know, the filmmakers may have invented a very good reason for Drogo and Primula to appear in the Shire scenes at the start of the first film and the end of the second one. I doubt they would have included them at all if they literally had no reason.
 
because the book is called The Hobbit for a reason. It is to do with one Hobbit's journey's and growth as a result of those journies. What other Hobbits were doing at that time is irrelevant. Other than trying to put in an unnecessary link to LOTR (which it is, all right they are important in LOTR but they told that story all ready) there is no reason to have Primula and Drogo in the mix. Legolas and Galadriel are a different story, there are perfectly good reasons as they tie in with what was going on at that time. Legolas less so but even he would logicall have been at Mirkwood at the time of The Quest for Erebor.
 
is the inclusion of Drogo and Primula an unnecessary link to The Lord of the Rings? They don't appear at all in the trilogy. They're not even mentioned. And since The Hobbit takes place thirty years or so before the birth of Frodo, there's no way they can include him in The Hobbit to establish his relationship with them. The only way I can imagine Drogo and Primula being used for LotR linkage is if one of the films has a flash-forward to Frodo's birth. Or if there's a scene in which the couple are discussing what they'll name their son if they have one in thirty years' time, and one of them says 'How about Frodo? Frodo Baggins!'

Both scenerios are very silly, so I think it's safe to say that neither will be used. Drogo and Primula must have some other purpose behind their inclusion.
 
Show me it is necessary. Necessary would imply you need them and that link with LOTR to in some way assist the telling of the story of the Hobbit. You don't therefore they are unnecessary.

Also they are mentioned in the EE of FOTR though not by name Bilbo says to Frodo "I don't know why I took you in after your mother and father died".
 
for me to prove that Drogo and Primula are 'necessary' when the film has yet to be produced and none of us have read the screenplay. But whatever the screenwriters had in mind, I'm sure it wasn't 'Let's insert Frodo's parents to link with Lord of the Rings'.

In order for a link to work, it must connect at both ends – Legolas appeared in The Lord of the Rings, and now he's being added to The Hobbit. That's a link. Galadriel appeared in The Lord of the Rings, and now she's being added to The Hobbit. That's another link. I'm not claiming that either of these links are bad things – far from it. But Drogo and Primula receive only one mention in The Lord of the Rings – and that's only in the extended edition. And their names aren't even spoken. All we're told about them is that they're dead, which was already implied by the facts that Frodo lives with his uncle and his parents are never seen. I really don't believe that these two characters are being shoehorned into The Hobbit solely to take advantage of Bilbo's single, vague mention of them and to establish a tenuous link between the two films.

I expect they'll appear at the start of the first film, then again at the end of the second one. They will have a few minutes of screentime, and their scenes will probably involve the Mayor of Michel Delving and/or the auction at Bag End. Perhaps the filmmakers thought that giving a larger role to Bilbo's family would make his homesickness more believable and sympathetic – I don't know. But whatever reasons Jackson and del Toro came up with, I'm sure they're pretty good ones.
 
I don't think it's a tenuous link at all. The link between Bilbo and Frodo is a huge part of the story, an essential part of the history of the ring, how and why it gets passed down, the link with Gollum, Sting, the Mithril shirt and so on.

Yes, I can see the filmmakers using Drogo for some other reason, but not to use him to show exactly how Frodo became Bilbo's heir, having introduced Frodo's father, seems a bit far fetched.

When I said that part of the bridge movie could still be told, I'm not suggesting hours of it, a massive amount could be shown in a very few minutes. I think we will see that.
 
I'd rather have them just stick with what Gollum does in the book, but I wouldn't really mind if he had a slightly expanded role.

They could have him pursue Bilbo and end up getting captured by the elves. Even though that happens decades later in the book, it wouldn't matter as much in the movie because his capture in Mirkwood was never part of the movie's story.

I think a little scene with Bilbo talking to an imprisoned Gollum while he's sneaking around the elf king's halls would be nice if done right.

But we'll see...
 
The story of The Hobbit is told in third person by a fatherly narrator to a childlike audience.

So why not a framing scene at Bilbo's 90th birthday, where a group of young hobbits listen wide eyed to Drogo Baggins relating the adventures of his cousin Bilbo to his young 11 year old son Frodo, his friends Merry, Pippin, and Samwise, all while Primula smiles indulgently, Bilbo wanders over occasionaly to correct his cousin, Gandalf shoots off fireworks in the background, and little Rosie Cotton tries to attract Sam's attention.

Now there's your connection to LOTR. It would nicely mirror Bilbo's storytelling to the young hobbits at his 111th birthday, and show that Bilbo was keeping Drogo's storytelling tradition alive.

This would also allow for the kids to ask questions at various points in the movies so Drogo could provide exposition and Bilbo and Gandalf could interject their own versions of events.

Of course personally I'd prefer they's stay as close to the book as possible, but as long as they're going to start shoveling in stuff like Idtaril anyway....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top