The Hobbit: A baby Bilbo scene?
 

It's honestly not surprising to me, given what other changes and additions they're implementing.

Even though it is somewhat accurate to what happens in Tolkien's writing, I don't see this addition to be necessary what-so-ever, since the original book had no problems conveying the characters groundwork without a flashback of any kind. That 500 Million budget ain't gonna' spend itself, I guess.

I get the impression that they work on the principle that no one has any sense or imagination and everything has to be shown. Too much to expect the audience to understand Gandalf's comment about being so addressed by Belladonna Took's son....

Captain Obvious all over again

Though from a cinematic perspective perspective, it makes sense...It's hard to convey on film that inside Bilbo has this adventurous side waiting to burst out. It's conveyed in the novel through use of the narrator but that's harder to convey in a film. Also, in the book, it's never TRULY explained why Gandalf chose Bilbo in particular outside of having a friendship with his ancestors. Got to give an on-screen reason for why Gandalf sees Bilbo as being worthy or fit for such a perilous quest.

Another example of why people ought to read the books first. Not that I'm opinionated, or anything. ;)

Martin Freeman's Bilbo doesn't really look stodgy, dull and settled to me, though.

In fact, he looks rather like Frodo should have looked. ;)

all that you have described could have easily been possible through dialogue, facial expressions, and positioning of exposition within the film. For example, Gandalf using most of this information in the form of a dramatic explanation as a way to convince Thorin to keep him on their quest as they have a small argument after the "unexpected party" at Bag End.

The whole story could have been told via dialogue - and you'd have a radio play. Its a film & the central philosophy of film is 'Show, don't tell'. I've been one of the biggest critics of the LotR films on this forum, but frankly I've mellowed - its a film & as long as the books are still going to be around I'm not too bothered what they put in the film - either they'll work as films & be entertaining in their own right, or they won't & a lot of people will lose both face & money, but either way the books will still be there & say what they always have - apart from whatever changes/amendments Christopher Tolkien decides to introduce ;) Whatever PJ has changed in the film version, only CT has introduced posthumous alterations to the text of the book (300-400 changes in the 50th Anniversary edition of LotR)- which has annoyed me far more than anything PJ has done.

So nerr :p

What changes did CR introduce to the 50th anniversary edition?

I was curious about that as well.

On the face of it though, I'd still be much more apt to trust CT's motives and judgement in changing things than any film maker's.

I started a fred about it many, many years ago, where its fairly obvious that I'm right in my objections & all those who disagree with my (typically) eloquent & apposite points are just embarrassing themselves. :smokin: http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=11338

Ah. I started a fred marathon once but was seized with the urge to fake a heart attack halfway through.

I'm not a CT minion, but I do play one on TV. ;)

Well, well... someone forgot that it depends on what is more important to show and what is more important to tell. Three lines of dialogue or a whole 3-minute sequence of unnecessary excessive ham? Filmmaking, I'm afraid, is a bit more complex than that; and with cinema, concise is not an unfamilliar word.