Who Should Play Beorn in The Hobbit?

[Bêthberry]

Bob Hoskins. Here he is as Odin and then as Badger, from Wind in the Willows.






He's maybe a bit short for a bear, but that's no impediment to an actor of his abilities. He lumbers very well, has a great sense of humour, and does delicious villians.

I could even see him as Bilbo, depending upon how young the director wants to make Bilbo appear (as opposed to how old he is in the book).

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

I don't think they'll get rid of Beorn as he's an important character - he saves Thorin from instant death and almost single handedly turns the tide of the battle on the ground. Besides that, is any film director going to pass up a bearded shapeshifter who transforms into a giant fighting bear?

The problem with Bombadil was that he would have totally ruined the atmosphere. Think about it - we have the scared Hobbits fleeing through the night in the shadowy forests from the ghostly Ringwraiths, when suddenly...'Hey dol! Merry dol! Don't you crush my lillies!' The movie would have lost all credibility, I'm afraid.

I expect that the film-makers will take a bit of the 'children's book'-character of the Hobbit away to make it more similar to the LotR in atmosphere. It would be less of a financial risk as that is what the general audience might expect the Hobbit to be.
In the LotR movies we have not heard of shape-shifters, so we need to spend more time for the introduction of Beorn than for those of other characters, because he will appear very weird otherwise (not to mention the animals that serve the companions). The same holds for Bombadil in a way - you'd have to invest a lot of time to make him look "realistic". Otherwise, as cool as Beorn might be, I fear many movie-goers might think "Huh? What is that guy supposed to be? This is soo not Middle-earth!"
And then the question arises: is it worth the effort? Would it be so disastrous to let the Eagles drop the travelling party immediately at Mirkwood? Is Beorn's appearance at the Battle really that important? Would we cut him in order to have more time to invest at the other stages of the story, to give more depth to other characters (for example certain characters that can fly and breathe fire and whom this story actually is about)?
The alternative would be to increase his role, like morm suggested. Of course I'd favour this as well, but what if screen time is getting short?

And now you may throw the stones.

[Brinniel]

Originally Posted by Mänwe

Oh and why not have John Rhys-Davies back as Thorin or one of the thirteen dwarves?

I'm afraid not. He has stated on the RotK dvds that he will never again play a dwarf (due to his allergic reactions from the makeup).

If anything, why not bring back Lawrence Makoare as Beorn? It'd be interesting to see him play a good guy for once.

EDIT: My 1,000th post!

[Nogrod]

Congrats Brinniel for the milestone!

Otherwise I'm afraid that Macalaure is right. The party is most economically carried to Mirkwood by the eagles and Beorn can be written off from the battle... Sadly so.

But it could make also a fine action-movieish (?) introduction to show Beorn shifting shape in an introductory action-scene! It would just require lots of explanations afterwards and an action movie would not bear (sic!) that...

Why I speak of an action movie? Well it's not going to be a Bergman-drama anyway...

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

But it could make also a fine action-movieish (?) introduction to show Beorn shifting shape in an introductory action-scene!

Oh no! The introductory/prologue scene needs to be how Gollum loses the Ring in his cave without noticing it (perhaps while choking one of the more witless orcs from behind?). Putting myself into somebody who has only seen the LotR on screen, this is something I'd like to know about and see, and I can't think about a different time in the movie where it could be placed.

Besides, I'm seconding Lalaith on Vinnie Jones.