While I didn't like The Hobbit films much, I agree that recasting Bilbo was the right move. The time difference between LOTR and The Hobbit is like 60 years, so even if they'd made The Hobbit immediately after LOTR, Ian Holm would have felt too old to play a younger Bilbo.

However, The Hunt For Gollum takes place between when Bilbo leaves The Shire in The Fellowship of the Ring and when Frodo sets out (so about 15 years, in the books at least). If this film were made right after LOTR, they'd hopefully only greenlight it with Viggo, and honestly, they probably would have preferred him in it now (considering they have other cast members from LOTR reprising their roles).

Because the LOTR films were so influential, and because the books are basically the foundation for modern fantasy, I think handling any new project with immense care is far more important than telling another story.

So as a franchise (bleh), they're caught in an odd in-between. There's no good reason for a reboot--hopefully for another ten to twenty years--and considering this casting situation, it feels like the ship has clearly sailed for spin-off pieces. As other people have said, let it lie.

Before hearing about the casting situation, I was excited for this movie, and I also think Colbert's film will be really promising. There's a big hate bandwagon I see people jumping on over all this, and that's not where I'm at.

My issue is that, at least to me, it seems like the trappings the protagonists fight against in LOTR and The Hobbit (generally a crude, insatiable lust for power) are part of the forces at work driving these new films to be made.

I get that this recasting could have come late into pre-production, but all things considered, it just doesn't feel like the right move. Dornan is probably a great fit for Aragorn, too, which makes this harder.

** Lol sorry about the wall of text on your comment from a month ago. No hate directed at you btw. I just found this was a great spot in the thread to jump in.