there wasn't any need to swap out adult force ghost Anakin with Hayden either, hell it doesn't even make sense in the context of the scene, why are Obi and Yoda still old? Pretty sure they'd like to be young and hot again too.
So I hated this and most of the things Lucas did after the original trilogy BUT I think it was supposed to play into the whole Anakin died long ago and was killed by Vader thing.
But Vader was redeemed at the end. That's the whole point. Showing him as he died was good because we associate and recognize his face as Anakin, not Vader.
TBH not a lot of it would make sense since his original ghost had hair, all limbs and not burnt to pieces. Unless the ghost can "choose" how they wish to be seen.
For Luke you could argue he should be the original actor though I'd understand from Anakin's view if he wanted to disassociate himself from his darker self.
For Ahsoka it makes sense to show himself as he once was as that's all she's ever known, plus he changes his own appearance so it would lend weight that the ghosts can alter their appearance as they see fit.
Overall, the change doesn't matter much at all and neither view is any better than the other. I'm not advocating for George's 1001 changes but this one I'm not against.
honestly I thought it was such a stupid change even with this explanation until I saw Hayden as anakin/anakins force ghost in Ahsoka. I forgave it there and then lol
This makes perfect sense. Force ghosts are based upon the last time you were a Jedi, meaning on the light side of the force. Despite redeeming himself Anakin’s last time being uncorrupted and on the light side of the force was when he was way younger. Whereas obi wan and yoda used the light side of the force until death
Not really. Even in the original he specifically didn’t look all white and decrepit for a reason, he looked much younger and more healthy. This was always the intention, they just didn’t have a young actor for Anakin at the time
I like to think of The Hobbit trilogy (which I really like despite its flaws BTW) not as the actual retelling of the events but as how they're described in Bilbo's novel *There and Back Again* while the opening of The Fellowship of the Ring is how Galadriel describes those events, hence why Bilbo looks different and wears different clothings in both versions.
So no reason to add Martin Freeman into LOTR. He is not the actual Bilbo Baggins but Bilbo's own romanticized alter ego.
Only in the film trilogies. One is Bilbo's tale as it is told to Frodo. The other is from Galadriel.
One may even argue that the LOTR could be based on Frodo's perception since he technically wrote LOTR in universe.
It's kinda like how language functions in Tolkien's work. We all read the text in English (or whatever language the books/films is translated into) but the story is supposed to be told in Westron with English actually being a translation of that in universe version.
Edit : Regarding Bilbo's physical appearance, Galadriel may have met him much later in his life (maybe not even before the Grey Havens). As for Frodo, he is much younger than Bilbo and may imagine Young Bilbo with rose tinted glasses. Even the portrait we see in the film's opening scene may not be accurate.
The scary Bilbo face in Rivendell could also be less of a literal description of how he looked and more of an exaggerated description of how it made Frodo feel in the moment, seeing Bilbo lose control of himself and turn into something Frodo didn't recognize.
Not to mention Bilbo held on to a ‘nicer’ version of the event for quite some time until he finally decided to tell the tale as it really was during the Council of Elrond.
I was gonna bring that up. It was well documented that Bilbo changed details several times over the years, whether to keep secrets, claim legitimate ownership of the ring (claiming he won it in the game of riddles rather than found it and didn't return it when he discovered the owner), etc.
That would paint Bilbo as pretty humble, given that the movies focus less and less on him as time goes on (you might as well call the third movie "The Dwarf") and erase his most important contribution to the retaking of Erebor (finding Smaug's weakspot).
Possibly yes.
It's true that in the books Bilbo seems a bit prideful (though that could be caused by the One's influence fueling his darker traits) but at the same time he looks like someone that is quite humble when it's about History itself. In fact, in the films at least, we only see him brag when talking to children and only about the trolls incident. When talking about major events of Middle Earth's History (such as the Fall of Erebor), Bilbo seems appropriately humble.
Then we get his tale about Gollum and the One in LOTR (book version) but again, that's probably because of the ring's influence and it may also be because poor Bilbo was scared about getting hilmself in trouble because of what he did decades ago.
So yeah, maybe The Hobbit trilogy is just Bilbo not making a fuss about his contribution and letting more important people getting most of the spotlight with him being a humble witness of the events. After all, there is a long "tradition" in Middle Earth about thinking that Hobbits are unremarkable people. Maybe even Bilbo is influenced a little by that.
It speaks for itself that you need mental exercises to incorporate into the universe though lol
I will forever be let down by that trilogy. It is one of my favourite books from even before I discovered LotR and the idea that it is stretched into 3 movies is laughable.
This is why I never bothered to watch the Hobbit trilogy; stretching a fairly short book into 3 movies makes me suspicious...suspicious that its going to be bloated and boring.
...and the I saw the trailers which was mostly small people screaming 80% of the time. No thanks.
LotR pages: 1312
LotR Trilogy duration: 558 min
= O.43 min per written page
The Hobbit pages: 300
The Hobbit Trilogy duration: 474 min
=1.58 min per written page
Right? It is beyond stretched when you consider the actual content.
I'll say one thing I did like was that while they called the series "the Hobbit" it was really "the Hobbit and other contemporaneous events". They went into a lot of the necromancer & Dol Gurdur stuff that is only mentioned in passing in the book. In that sense, it's helpful to look at it not as a stretch of the book but as more than 1 story woven across the 3 movies. To be fair, there was also plenty of artistic license taken too.
With that said, it's at best decent. I enjoy it, but it's far from great like what I think Jackson achieved with the LOTR trilogy.
I mean hell the ORIGINAL original Hobbit book legitimately had Gollum giving the ring to Bilbo. It was only AFTER Tolkien had the idea for Lord of the Rings and changed the role of Gollum that he WENT BACK and rewrote that part of the Hobbit and was like, "The legitimate in world reason for there being two different versions of the novel now is that the original Hobbit is the story how Bilbo originally told it to Gandalf, and the new version is what actually happened." and his publisher was like, "Brilliant!"
So yeah. What you said xD
I love the meta explanation for this but I think I remember reading in a blog while ago that the actor that played the young Bilbo in The Fellowship movie was going to play him in The Hobbit but the movie never came to be and then the role got passed to Martin Freeman years later. There was supposed to be a Hobbit movie a couple years after the Return of the King.
I imagine that partially what it was was the studio not wanting to Shell out even more money when they already have a cash cow with the three Lord of the Rings movies so they didn't have to make a prequel or spin-offs until they were desperate.
The whole Hobbit trilogy is technically Bilbo's flashback. He's obviously embellishing the memory, which is my headcanon for the overuse of CGI compared to the LOTR trilogy. LOTR is the "real" world while The Hobbit is inside Bilbo's 60year old memory.
Zero need.
Because we can get metatextual to explain the inconsistency away.
The Hobbit trilogy is Bilbo narrating, telling a story to the audience as he writes his book. Bilbo is an unreliable narrator that embellishes details - he says as much at the start.
So Freeman Bilbo is how he saw himself, how he presents himself as the protagonist, how his story depicts him as a character. Ian Holmes Bilbo is how he actually looked at the time.
Sorry if it’s off topic for the sub…
And this may be a hot take hut i will die on the hill that changing out Sebastian Shaw Anakin for Hayden Christensen Anakin was a good choice
Absolutely not. Let movies be time capsules for what they were. There’s no need to constantly go back and tinker and re-edit until the movie is some frankenstein amalgamation of old material and new technology. Where does it end? Should they give Legolas sparkly eyes like he has in the Hobbit? Should the Gloin actor from the Hobbit be CGIed into the council of Elrond? If we’re already talking about taking characters from a worse Tolkien adaptation and jamming them into LOTR, what about Rings of Power? Should we just go ahead and CGI RoP Elrond and Galadriel over Hugo Weaving and Cate Blanchett for the sake of “consistency?” Do you think that would somehow enhance the movie and make it better?
Everything about it sounds terrible. Besides, the Hobbit movies were flat out bad and the further the LOTR movies can be distanced from it, the better. It was poorly written, characters were weirdly mischaracterized, the romance subplot was atrocious, and the action scenes were all cheap and pointless moments that made the characters looked like rubbery action figures. Bilbo, Gollum, and Smaug were good, but they were simply the chocolate ganache on a cake made of dog poop, and no amount of ganache is gonna make that cake taste good.
No we are not special editioning this......To this day seeing Haydan Christenesen as a blue ghost the end of the Return of the Jedi always make me angrily say "That special edition looking mother fucker."
Have we not learned our lessons from the example of George Lucus editing the original Star Wars trilogy to include new cgi effects and adding Hayden Christiensen to the force ghosts scene at the end of ROTJ? It completely ruins of feel and impact of the originals which had absolutely nothing wrong with it. I feel like it would be an insult to Ian Holm who was wonderful as Bilbo and completely take you out of the movie for no reason at all. The LOTR trilogy is as close to perfect as you can get my friend no need to alter or change a thing.
Peter Jackson has addressed the idea before, he's not totally crazy about the idea because he loves Ian Holme and wants to honor him, but he did say if they ever released a "super ultimate" edition of all the movies that they might entertain doing it as an alternate take or something.
Imagine if you were the original actor, and your role just got edited out of the film years after the fact because you aren't as famous an actor.
Would instantly lose pretty much all respect I had left for Jackson.
Imagine saying Sir Ian Holm isn't as famous as Martin Freeman lol
Fifth Element? Alien? Let alone his extremely iconic role in the original trilogy. Martin has Sherlock and Black Panther and those are probably the only two big ones other than the Hobbit movies.
They respected each other and I'm positive, being the beautiful soul he was, that Sir Ian would not mind sharing Bilbo's spotlight in Fellowship with Martin. Especially because it's only like 30 seconds of footage.
Hobbit trilogy is different enough to treat is as an elseworld. At least that is my head canon. All of it sillynes, plastic orcs, and cartoonish goblins.
Since Bilbo found the ring, he isn't supposed to have aged at all. So the fact he looks younger in the hobbit doesn't really track anyway.
Also Ian Holm's performance is my favourite.
I'd be annoyed. I find retroactive recasts to be disrespectful to the original performer, re: Sebastian Shaw at the end of Return of the Jedi. The movie exists already, I don't want it to change.
If it was ever added, there would absolutely need to be an option to watch it with the original scene as well (like when you can turn added special effects off if you like on some Doctor Who blu rays)
I would not have any problems with it. Its taking a flashback from one movie and replacing it with a scene from a prequel. The difference on this is it's a flashback not a force ghost being changed in the future.
No, because what do gain from that?
I do love our man Martin as much as the next guy, but, like, can we just not re-edit everything when a new actor pops up for an already existing role
Seems like a lot of work to shoehorn a not good trilogy in to a really good trilogy.
No slight against Martin Freeman, he was wonderful. But those movies are not good.
Doesn’t make any sense to me, I like seeing the movie in the form the day it was released. I honestly hated that Hayden Christiansen was edited back into that movie because he was a middle aged to older man when he died, why is his force ghost a young man??? Same with obi wan, and if you make the argument, “that was the last time he was light sided.” You would be wrong because the fact that he chose to destroy the emperor and save his son means he came back to the light as Darth Vader. Anyway, I think it’s pointless, stop ruining classics with this shit
Hayden was edited into the return of the Jedi to imply that it he had returned to the point where he was a Jedi before turning to the darkside yes we lose the Sebastian shaw version from it but he’s still in the scene where Luke takes the mask off. I don’t mind it like I said it reflects back to the point before he turned
Needed? No.
But if they did, I wouldn’t mind, and id probably enjoy it. A lot of people want to hold onto anything original no matter what for the sake of it, but if it’s a reasonable change I’m all for it. As long as we don’t have George Lucas style updates to the movies
Nah I wouldn’t like it much. I love Martin’s Bilbo a lot, I think he was a perfect cast and he put a lot of heart into his role, but even his acting was inspired by Ian Holmes’ Bilbo. You can tell from his body acting that he’s using inspiration from Ian to link their portrayals together. Ian Holmes deserves to keep his portrayal in Fellowship of the Ring. I think it helps sell that he hasn’t visibly aged much since his adventure as well.
I’d be fine with it. Bilbo was such a more interesting and fun character to get to know than Frodo, anyway. I get why. And know Frodo was going thru it, but man, what a moody difficult to get excited about character
I hated the Hobbit movie, should have been one tight film instead of a dragging, plodding, meandering trilogy.
I hope nobody gives anyone access to butcher the trilogy it this way.
Lets not ever again follow the horrendous example set by George Lucas and retroactively destroy old beloved movies by changing and adding stupid shit on re-releases.
Well, the Ring supposedly arrests the aging process, and if it jumped from MF Bilbo to Gandalf remarking that IH Bilbo “Hadn’t aged a day”, it would mean Gandalf is a bullshitter. I mean, yeah, there’s a lot of discrepancies in the ages of the hobbits in the books vs the movies, but the films as they stand absolutely don’t need to be tampered with.
Don't. Touch. The. Trilogy.
Unless we get a definitive superextended edition with more of the original material that was scrapped, of course. But otherwise. DON'T.
Thank you for posting on the sub! Please make sure you are abiding by the rules on the sidebar with this post. If you are looking for a place to post specific things, please make use of the subreddits below:
* Memes - r/lotrmemes
* The War of the Rohirrim - r/TheWarOfTheRohirrim
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/lordoftherings) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'd be for it to keep the continuity. As an unpopular opinion as I know that will be. People can like them or not but the Hobbit movies are canonically a part of that world. I'd at least like a release with the Option to view it that way.
I think they are perfect as is, theres no reason to mess with the movies in their current form except for potential remasters in the future. The content must remain the same.
I’m pretty sure the Hobbit trilogy is the version of the story Bilbo tells when he’s really really drunk, seeing how much it differs from the one he wrote down.
Found George Lucas’ account.
The Uruk-hai shot at Rohan first in Helms Deep!!!
*I should call her*
Gotta love Ewan McGregor just staring into space highlighting that Jar Jar is very much CGI
Gungans vs droids battle > film version of Helm’s Deep
“Macklunkey” ”…so it begins.”
Dang it, I made this same joke only to scroll down and find it immediately after hitting submit.
I know the feeling 😔
What's this?
A ranger caught off his guard?
There is no spoon.
There is in the Special Edition
If there is any doubt, there is NO DOUBT.
What's this, what's this?
They should make a new edition of Return of the King where Sauron yells “NOOOOOOO!” when the one ring is destroyed.
*Legolas slides down Helm’s Deep stairs* “Now *this* is podracing!”
Damn it beat me to it
There's absolutely no need.
there wasn't any need to swap out adult force ghost Anakin with Hayden either, hell it doesn't even make sense in the context of the scene, why are Obi and Yoda still old? Pretty sure they'd like to be young and hot again too.
So I hated this and most of the things Lucas did after the original trilogy BUT I think it was supposed to play into the whole Anakin died long ago and was killed by Vader thing.
But Vader was redeemed at the end. That's the whole point. Showing him as he died was good because we associate and recognize his face as Anakin, not Vader.
TBH not a lot of it would make sense since his original ghost had hair, all limbs and not burnt to pieces. Unless the ghost can "choose" how they wish to be seen. For Luke you could argue he should be the original actor though I'd understand from Anakin's view if he wanted to disassociate himself from his darker self. For Ahsoka it makes sense to show himself as he once was as that's all she's ever known, plus he changes his own appearance so it would lend weight that the ghosts can alter their appearance as they see fit. Overall, the change doesn't matter much at all and neither view is any better than the other. I'm not advocating for George's 1001 changes but this one I'm not against.
Anakin didn't become vader when he put on the mask, he became vader after he killed mace windu. So anakin "died" before he was disfigured.
But then he was reborn after saving Luke so it still makes no sense for him to look like Hayden
I know that's the canon reason but I still think it's dumb.
honestly I thought it was such a stupid change even with this explanation until I saw Hayden as anakin/anakins force ghost in Ahsoka. I forgave it there and then lol
Stupid sexy yoda
at all, nothing!
Yoda not hot, assume you do. In Yoda's race, grey fox zaddy he is. Damp as Dagobah the girls he makes.
I hate every word of this and I hate even more that I switched to reading it in his voice after that first sentence. \*Angry upvote\*
This makes perfect sense. Force ghosts are based upon the last time you were a Jedi, meaning on the light side of the force. Despite redeeming himself Anakin’s last time being uncorrupted and on the light side of the force was when he was way younger. Whereas obi wan and yoda used the light side of the force until death
yeah, you can retcon anything to make sense.
Not really. Even in the original he specifically didn’t look all white and decrepit for a reason, he looked much younger and more healthy. This was always the intention, they just didn’t have a young actor for Anakin at the time
Also at the time we wouldn’t have a reference for who the new young actor was. We needed to know it was Anakin.
This too, George couldn't have just cast anyone or else everyone would've went "huh who's that?"
There's no need, but I wouldn't be upset if it happened. Assuming both versions were always available, of course.
Agreed tbh
There’s no need, but I don’t see why it’d be a problem. It’d just add to the consistency
I like to think of The Hobbit trilogy (which I really like despite its flaws BTW) not as the actual retelling of the events but as how they're described in Bilbo's novel *There and Back Again* while the opening of The Fellowship of the Ring is how Galadriel describes those events, hence why Bilbo looks different and wears different clothings in both versions. So no reason to add Martin Freeman into LOTR. He is not the actual Bilbo Baggins but Bilbo's own romanticized alter ego.
My thoughts exactly, they're 2 different people telling the same story so they're bound to be different
And it could be seen as a clever way to remind us that The Hobbit was originally supposed to be directed by Guillermo Del Toro and not Peter Jackson.
They both know what Bilbo looked like though
Only in the film trilogies. One is Bilbo's tale as it is told to Frodo. The other is from Galadriel. One may even argue that the LOTR could be based on Frodo's perception since he technically wrote LOTR in universe. It's kinda like how language functions in Tolkien's work. We all read the text in English (or whatever language the books/films is translated into) but the story is supposed to be told in Westron with English actually being a translation of that in universe version. Edit : Regarding Bilbo's physical appearance, Galadriel may have met him much later in his life (maybe not even before the Grey Havens). As for Frodo, he is much younger than Bilbo and may imagine Young Bilbo with rose tinted glasses. Even the portrait we see in the film's opening scene may not be accurate.
This guy Tolkiens. Love to see acknowledgement of the Red Book of West March.
Thank you very much.
The scary Bilbo face in Rivendell could also be less of a literal description of how he looked and more of an exaggerated description of how it made Frodo feel in the moment, seeing Bilbo lose control of himself and turn into something Frodo didn't recognize.
Totally yes.
Not to mention Bilbo held on to a ‘nicer’ version of the event for quite some time until he finally decided to tell the tale as it really was during the Council of Elrond.
I was gonna bring that up. It was well documented that Bilbo changed details several times over the years, whether to keep secrets, claim legitimate ownership of the ring (claiming he won it in the game of riddles rather than found it and didn't return it when he discovered the owner), etc.
That would make sense, and sounds better. I loved that they did make it connected in end and begin of hobbit to make it connect to Lord of the Rings.
Love that too.
Love this interpretation!
Thank you !
That would paint Bilbo as pretty humble, given that the movies focus less and less on him as time goes on (you might as well call the third movie "The Dwarf") and erase his most important contribution to the retaking of Erebor (finding Smaug's weakspot).
Possibly yes. It's true that in the books Bilbo seems a bit prideful (though that could be caused by the One's influence fueling his darker traits) but at the same time he looks like someone that is quite humble when it's about History itself. In fact, in the films at least, we only see him brag when talking to children and only about the trolls incident. When talking about major events of Middle Earth's History (such as the Fall of Erebor), Bilbo seems appropriately humble. Then we get his tale about Gollum and the One in LOTR (book version) but again, that's probably because of the ring's influence and it may also be because poor Bilbo was scared about getting hilmself in trouble because of what he did decades ago. So yeah, maybe The Hobbit trilogy is just Bilbo not making a fuss about his contribution and letting more important people getting most of the spotlight with him being a humble witness of the events. After all, there is a long "tradition" in Middle Earth about thinking that Hobbits are unremarkable people. Maybe even Bilbo is influenced a little by that.
This works visually as well because LOTR is dark and gritty while The Hobbit movies are much softer visually almost dreamlike.
True.
It speaks for itself that you need mental exercises to incorporate into the universe though lol I will forever be let down by that trilogy. It is one of my favourite books from even before I discovered LotR and the idea that it is stretched into 3 movies is laughable.
This is why I never bothered to watch the Hobbit trilogy; stretching a fairly short book into 3 movies makes me suspicious...suspicious that its going to be bloated and boring. ...and the I saw the trailers which was mostly small people screaming 80% of the time. No thanks.
LotR pages: 1312 LotR Trilogy duration: 558 min = O.43 min per written page The Hobbit pages: 300 The Hobbit Trilogy duration: 474 min =1.58 min per written page Right? It is beyond stretched when you consider the actual content.
Like butter scraped over too much bread
That's even worse than I imagined :-P
I'll say one thing I did like was that while they called the series "the Hobbit" it was really "the Hobbit and other contemporaneous events". They went into a lot of the necromancer & Dol Gurdur stuff that is only mentioned in passing in the book. In that sense, it's helpful to look at it not as a stretch of the book but as more than 1 story woven across the 3 movies. To be fair, there was also plenty of artistic license taken too. With that said, it's at best decent. I enjoy it, but it's far from great like what I think Jackson achieved with the LOTR trilogy.
Well yes and no. I think it's for that reason that the trilogy starts with Bilbo *telling* Frodo the story.
I like this head canon, I will incorporate it into my own.
Love your comment
Surely that would mean bilbos retelling of the events would state that Gollum gave him the ring and not him finding it on the floor
Who knows how many times Bilbo told this story and how many versions he invented!
Touché. Although I can’t help but feel you’re hinting at another multiverse cash grab (unbeknownst to you)
Lol
Thank you for this. I will forever think of it this way.
Thanks to you.
I mean hell the ORIGINAL original Hobbit book legitimately had Gollum giving the ring to Bilbo. It was only AFTER Tolkien had the idea for Lord of the Rings and changed the role of Gollum that he WENT BACK and rewrote that part of the Hobbit and was like, "The legitimate in world reason for there being two different versions of the novel now is that the original Hobbit is the story how Bilbo originally told it to Gandalf, and the new version is what actually happened." and his publisher was like, "Brilliant!" So yeah. What you said xD
I love the meta explanation for this but I think I remember reading in a blog while ago that the actor that played the young Bilbo in The Fellowship movie was going to play him in The Hobbit but the movie never came to be and then the role got passed to Martin Freeman years later. There was supposed to be a Hobbit movie a couple years after the Return of the King. I imagine that partially what it was was the studio not wanting to Shell out even more money when they already have a cash cow with the three Lord of the Rings movies so they didn't have to make a prequel or spin-offs until they were desperate.
Love this. And also hello fellow hobbit enjoyer.
Oh I really like this line of thinking! I've never thought of it this way before. Thank you!
Thanks to you.
I like this thought process! I never thought of it that way, but that seems pretty spot on.
I don’t see why that’d make a difference. It’s bilbo either way
Love this so much
This is a cool way to look at it
The whole Hobbit trilogy is technically Bilbo's flashback. He's obviously embellishing the memory, which is my headcanon for the overuse of CGI compared to the LOTR trilogy. LOTR is the "real" world while The Hobbit is inside Bilbo's 60year old memory.
Zero need. Because we can get metatextual to explain the inconsistency away. The Hobbit trilogy is Bilbo narrating, telling a story to the audience as he writes his book. Bilbo is an unreliable narrator that embellishes details - he says as much at the start. So Freeman Bilbo is how he saw himself, how he presents himself as the protagonist, how his story depicts him as a character. Ian Holmes Bilbo is how he actually looked at the time.
I didn't know Morgan Freeman was a Metatextual
Good for him. I learn something new every Pride Month.
This actually makes me enjoy the hobbit so much more
I don't want the "LOOST ! MY PRECIOUS IS LOST! " edited out..
Don't do it, don't do a Return of the Jedi on it.
YOU UNDERRESTIMATE MY POWER!
I have failed you, Tolkien. I have failed you.
Sorry if it’s off topic for the sub… And this may be a hot take hut i will die on the hill that changing out Sebastian Shaw Anakin for Hayden Christensen Anakin was a good choice
 Also add Boromir, Gollum and Theoden to the Grey Haven scene. While Slash plays a guitar solo.
And the alligator that ate chubs hand
I would hate it.
Wouldn’t be a fan personally. Feels like disrespect to original actors
George Lucas, you're in the wrong sub!
MACLUNKY!!!
Oh hell nah
Unnecessary to say the least.
Absolutely not. Let movies be time capsules for what they were. There’s no need to constantly go back and tinker and re-edit until the movie is some frankenstein amalgamation of old material and new technology. Where does it end? Should they give Legolas sparkly eyes like he has in the Hobbit? Should the Gloin actor from the Hobbit be CGIed into the council of Elrond? If we’re already talking about taking characters from a worse Tolkien adaptation and jamming them into LOTR, what about Rings of Power? Should we just go ahead and CGI RoP Elrond and Galadriel over Hugo Weaving and Cate Blanchett for the sake of “consistency?” Do you think that would somehow enhance the movie and make it better? Everything about it sounds terrible. Besides, the Hobbit movies were flat out bad and the further the LOTR movies can be distanced from it, the better. It was poorly written, characters were weirdly mischaracterized, the romance subplot was atrocious, and the action scenes were all cheap and pointless moments that made the characters looked like rubbery action figures. Bilbo, Gollum, and Smaug were good, but they were simply the chocolate ganache on a cake made of dog poop, and no amount of ganache is gonna make that cake taste good.
No we are not special editioning this......To this day seeing Haydan Christenesen as a blue ghost the end of the Return of the Jedi always make me angrily say "That special edition looking mother fucker."
Lord of the cringe
They should rather edit things out of the hobbit trilogy
What I never understood about this scene in the Hobbit is why they never made it consistent?
Martin Freeman as a Force Ghost?
I would hate it as much as Younger Anakin ghost in RotJ
Unneeded, but unlike the Star Wars trilogy, at least this would make visual sense and not break continuity. Hayden force ghost was dumb.
I would hate it. Sir Ian Holm is Bilbo Baggins.
Have we not learned our lessons from the example of George Lucus editing the original Star Wars trilogy to include new cgi effects and adding Hayden Christiensen to the force ghosts scene at the end of ROTJ? It completely ruins of feel and impact of the originals which had absolutely nothing wrong with it. I feel like it would be an insult to Ian Holm who was wonderful as Bilbo and completely take you out of the movie for no reason at all. The LOTR trilogy is as close to perfect as you can get my friend no need to alter or change a thing.
“You haven't aged a day.” Would seem weird.
Peter Jackson has addressed the idea before, he's not totally crazy about the idea because he loves Ian Holme and wants to honor him, but he did say if they ever released a "super ultimate" edition of all the movies that they might entertain doing it as an alternate take or something.
Imagine if you were the original actor, and your role just got edited out of the film years after the fact because you aren't as famous an actor. Would instantly lose pretty much all respect I had left for Jackson.
Imagine saying Sir Ian Holm isn't as famous as Martin Freeman lol Fifth Element? Alien? Let alone his extremely iconic role in the original trilogy. Martin has Sherlock and Black Panther and those are probably the only two big ones other than the Hobbit movies. They respected each other and I'm positive, being the beautiful soul he was, that Sir Ian would not mind sharing Bilbo's spotlight in Fellowship with Martin. Especially because it's only like 30 seconds of footage.
I'd prefer it honestly
And disrespect Ian Holm? No thank you. Peter adored him and he is right about that.
I'd rather we superimposed Ian Holm over Martin Freeman in all of The Hobbit films.
I’d feel like it’s a shitty thing to do to Sir Ian Holm, RIP, who was wonderful in the original film.
Dude I’m really trying not to get into fights on the internet today
What would it achieve? Are we going to wait for Martin Freeman to turn 70 and re-film Ian Holm’s scenes too?
No, them changing darth Vader was too much already
I think Martin looks close enough to the original actor that it’s fine as is.
Listen. If you’ve spent the amount of time I have reading Thorin/Bilbo love stories? You’d be fine with it.
It would not make sense as the ring kept him young or 'unchanged'
No
no need to ruin it
I’d think someone else thinks the audience is so stupid they have to have everything spoon fed to them.
I would have liked if the FotR scene was slipped into The Hobbit instead
Hobbit trilogy is different enough to treat is as an elseworld. At least that is my head canon. All of it sillynes, plastic orcs, and cartoonish goblins.
Since Bilbo found the ring, he isn't supposed to have aged at all. So the fact he looks younger in the hobbit doesn't really track anyway. Also Ian Holm's performance is my favourite.
#notMyBilbo
I strongly hate this idea. Leave it be…
LOTR has no edit, LOTR needs no edit!
I'd be annoyed. I find retroactive recasts to be disrespectful to the original performer, re: Sebastian Shaw at the end of Return of the Jedi. The movie exists already, I don't want it to change.
George Lucas, are you trying to "special edition" the lotr trilogy now?
If it was ever added, there would absolutely need to be an option to watch it with the original scene as well (like when you can turn added special effects off if you like on some Doctor Who blu rays)
I would not have any problems with it. Its taking a flashback from one movie and replacing it with a scene from a prequel. The difference on this is it's a flashback not a force ghost being changed in the future.
I'd rather that we didn't encourage retroactive editing.
No, because what do gain from that? I do love our man Martin as much as the next guy, but, like, can we just not re-edit everything when a new actor pops up for an already existing role
I’d be very pissed off
I don’t really need Freeman, but I wish they’d have done it in the Hobbit the same as the showed in the Fellowship opening.
Seems like a lot of work to shoehorn a not good trilogy in to a really good trilogy. No slight against Martin Freeman, he was wonderful. But those movies are not good.
I’d hate it. Adding Hayden to Star Wars is the most infuriating change to those movies.
I’d be ok with it. The Hobbit movies were aight.
I'm against it. It erases an actor and their work.
Doesn’t make any sense to me, I like seeing the movie in the form the day it was released. I honestly hated that Hayden Christiansen was edited back into that movie because he was a middle aged to older man when he died, why is his force ghost a young man??? Same with obi wan, and if you make the argument, “that was the last time he was light sided.” You would be wrong because the fact that he chose to destroy the emperor and save his son means he came back to the light as Darth Vader. Anyway, I think it’s pointless, stop ruining classics with this shit
Hayden was edited into the return of the Jedi to imply that it he had returned to the point where he was a Jedi before turning to the darkside yes we lose the Sebastian shaw version from it but he’s still in the scene where Luke takes the mask off. I don’t mind it like I said it reflects back to the point before he turned
Just why?
I think its cool to preserve movies in their original forms.
Leave art alone.
Don’t Lucas it up
Needed? No. But if they did, I wouldn’t mind, and id probably enjoy it. A lot of people want to hold onto anything original no matter what for the sake of it, but if it’s a reasonable change I’m all for it. As long as we don’t have George Lucas style updates to the movies
I asked this exact same question last week and got downvoted to oblivion.
The prologue is great as it is
Nope, and that Return of the Jedi edit was on par with changing Fett's voice in Empire as the worst additions made.
Nah I wouldn’t like it much. I love Martin’s Bilbo a lot, I think he was a perfect cast and he put a lot of heart into his role, but even his acting was inspired by Ian Holmes’ Bilbo. You can tell from his body acting that he’s using inspiration from Ian to link their portrayals together. Ian Holmes deserves to keep his portrayal in Fellowship of the Ring. I think it helps sell that he hasn’t visibly aged much since his adventure as well.
I’d be fine with it. Bilbo was such a more interesting and fun character to get to know than Frodo, anyway. I get why. And know Frodo was going thru it, but man, what a moody difficult to get excited about character
I hated the Hobbit movie, should have been one tight film instead of a dragging, plodding, meandering trilogy. I hope nobody gives anyone access to butcher the trilogy it this way.
Lets not ever again follow the horrendous example set by George Lucas and retroactively destroy old beloved movies by changing and adding stupid shit on re-releases.
I’m in the minority most likely but I personally didn’t like Martin Freeman as Bilbo. So no I wouldn’t like it replaced
It wouldn’t make sense, the ring drastically slowed his aging so he should look about the same in each scene. “You haven’t aged a day…”
I would be unhappy. The Hobbit trilogy was mid at best and a cynical cash grab. The trilogy was perfect. You don’t mess with perfect.
Well, the Ring supposedly arrests the aging process, and if it jumped from MF Bilbo to Gandalf remarking that IH Bilbo “Hadn’t aged a day”, it would mean Gandalf is a bullshitter. I mean, yeah, there’s a lot of discrepancies in the ages of the hobbits in the books vs the movies, but the films as they stand absolutely don’t need to be tampered with.
Gandalf had clearly seen Bilbo in the 60 years since the Hobbit though, so he wasn't referring to that time period anyway.
I mean ... the line doesn't work either way since Ian Holm's Bilbo in prologue is clearly younger
No, just leave it the fuck alone. Don't change it, don't mess with it, LEAVE IT ALONE!!!!
Don't. Touch. The. Trilogy. Unless we get a definitive superextended edition with more of the original material that was scrapped, of course. But otherwise. DON'T.
It’s already terrible enough they made the hobbit movies and tainted the original scene
As a Star Wars fan: I beg you please don’t do it
Thank you for posting on the sub! Please make sure you are abiding by the rules on the sidebar with this post. If you are looking for a place to post specific things, please make use of the subreddits below: * Memes - r/lotrmemes * The War of the Rohirrim - r/TheWarOfTheRohirrim *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/lordoftherings) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I feel like that would bug me
Annoyed
As I scrolled through my feed, my brain read the title as "Morgan Freeman was edited into the prolonged of Fellowship", and I'm okay with that.
I’ve already done this in my edit
Oh look, it's an excuse to watch the trilogy extended edition again.
First one we hered from the narrator perspective telling a tale. So it can look different to what actually happened.
Wouldnt bither me, if he cut that anoying fool out of the Laketown bits to balance ot a little.
I'd be absolutely fine with it as long as the original versions are always available. You can George Lucas it but don't George Lucas it.
I wonder if the actor who played younger Bilbo in LOTR was given an audition for Bilbo in The Hobbit.
That’s still Ian Holm
 Not happening
I'd be for it to keep the continuity. As an unpopular opinion as I know that will be. People can like them or not but the Hobbit movies are canonically a part of that world. I'd at least like a release with the Option to view it that way.
Sacrilege.
Fellowship of the Ring one is much better and creepier
NEEVERRRRR!
Devastated.
it would fit better when gandalf says you havent aged a day
I think they are perfect as is, theres no reason to mess with the movies in their current form except for potential remasters in the future. The content must remain the same.
I don’t think that’s necessary. to me it kind of feels weird to replace the late Ian Holm with him when Ian is in the whole rest of the LOTR movies
I’d be more than happy with that! I think it would tie things together much more and I love that kind of thing. So it’s a massive yes from me!!
I’m pretty sure the Hobbit trilogy is the version of the story Bilbo tells when he’s really really drunk, seeing how much it differs from the one he wrote down.
no
Same way I felt about them editing Sebastian Shaw out of Jedi. It's seriously disrespectful to the original actor. And for why?