Hope this doesn't go off the deep end too soon... as I would hate to waste a *promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, December 20th, 2011 7:42pm PST - promote requested by original submitter RFlagg.

*backup=[...snipped...]

Invocations (backup=[]) cannot be called by raverman because raverman is not privileged - sorry.

hm. Seems a bit... cartoony?

Seems the entire hobbit company save one are for comedy relief. Hope I'm wrong. Can't remember one goofball in the book.

QT: http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/thehobbit/

I'll go out on a limb and predict this movie will do pretty well.

ooh ooh ooh hobbitses!!!!

Next December.......

*sad

I have the opposite reaction in that the tone seems too much like LOTR. The Hobbit was a fairly cartoony book - much more of a classic kids adventure than a sprawling epic like LOTR. It should be lighter, funnier and more whimsical than its sequel. I'm guessing Jackson feels a need to unite these two books that take place in the same universe, even though the writing style varies so greatly between them. Either way, he can bank on my $24.

>> ^Enzoblue:

Seems the entire hobbit company save one are for comedy relief. Hope I'm wrong. Can't remember one goofball in the book.


What book?

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Enzoblue:
Seems the entire hobbit company save one are for comedy relief. Hope I'm wrong. Can't remember one goofball in the book.

What book?


A book is a medium of communicating information. Kind of like an iPad, but it needs fewer batteries. Books are no longer popular among the general populace, and are almost exclusively used by Communists, Liberals, Intellectuals and other Nazis.

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

I'm liking that they put a song into the trailer and fit it to that. The scenery and armor/costuming looks amazing as I ever could have dreamed.

Things I wish were so:
- I really wish that Guillermo Del Toro would have directed this instead of Peter Jackson. I really think he could have done a better job than PJ.
- Mr. Tolkien himself gave up on trying to make a version of The Hobbit a LOTR prequel, so I hope they don't get bogged down in that too much and try to stay true to the original story.

- What'd you get up to last night?

- Nothing. Just stayed in and had a biiiiiiig wank.

I've been waiting for this! Brilliant and *quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by alien_concept.

>> ^Ferazel:

I really wish that Guillermo Del Toro would have directed this instead of Peter Jackson. I really think he could have done a better job than PJ.

Nah. Del Toro is a good director, but not a great one. Peter Jackson is the right man for the job.

Love that song.

And yes, The Hobbit is much more a kids adventure book (Tolkien had written it for his children). But as long as they don't go too much either way (not too cartoony, and not too dark) it will be just fine.

How anybody can claim that another director would do a better job than Jackson is beyond me. I don't know how much time he put into this whole project but we would wait around another ten years until anyone could create something equally awesome.

Well, aren't you a risk-taker!
>> ^Fletch:

I'll go out on a limb and predict this movie will do pretty well.

They do need to be connected, but trailers can be deceiving too. Let's see when some more stuff is released. This does look very close to the lord of the rings, I'm cool with that.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I have the opposite reaction in that the tone seems too much like LOTR. The Hobbit was a fairly cartoony book - much more of a classic kids adventure than a sprawling epic like LOTR. It should be lighter, funnier and more whimsical than its sequel. I'm guessing Jackson feels a need to unite these two books that take place in the same universe, even though the writing style varies so greatly between them. Either way, he can bank on my $24.

Some of those dwarves look far too human.

I'm so chuffed, that gave me delicious goosebumps!

A whole friggin' YEAR though?? Gah!

OMG Yes... I definitely hear where Dystopian is coming from, but frankly I loved the way that Jackson and crew improved upon the original books for the LOTR. Feel free to flame me, but I actually enjoyed the movies MORE than the books on a lot of levels. There are exchanges in the book that just aren't as natural or tight as they are in the movie and I know this is likely heresy, but I feel like there are some which were even improved. The perfect example is the exchange between Bilbo and Gandalf towards the beginning of the FOTR, particularly after the party when they are discussing Bilbo's departure and the leaving of the ring behind...

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

I predict a record number of "dupeof"s for this one!

I think it will be to an extent especially at the beginning but... at the same time, the majority of people who will see this movie (as was the case with LOTR) will never, ever read a book (I'm looking at YOU americans!). So, they would not understand why The Hobbit is so ridiculous and childish as compared to LOTR. I for one would be disappointed if the movie were done in exactly the same spirit/tone as the novel (the book was for kids after all).

In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat; it was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort.



I'd feel like I was watching teletubbies if the movie were presented in such a way

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

It should be lighter, funnier and more whimsical than its sequel.

Instead of Peter Jackson? It might as well be George Lucas if someone other than Jackson were to take it on. Because if you're going to make a mistake, why not go full-retard?
>> ^Ferazel:

I really wish that Guillermo Del Toro would have directed this instead of Peter Jackson. I really think he could have done a better job than PJ.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

... It should be lighter, funnier and more whimsical than its sequel. . .


***SPOILER ALERT***


While on one hand I agree, I also disagree. I recently re-read this, and the standoff between Balin and locals after Smaug destroys their town and is killed, as well as Bilbo's deception (donning the ring, sneaking off to make a deal to end the standoff etc...) and the ensuing Battle of the Five Armies... these things have a very epic and grownup quality to them.

Seems the entire hobbit company save one are for comedy relief. Hope I'm wrong. Can't remember one goofball in the book

Well - to be perfectly fair - very few of the 13 dwarves had any kind of role at all in the book. The only major exception was Thorin - who was given a very stubborn/arrogant/long-winded role integral to the end of the story.

Aside from that the dwarves only had VERY minor roles that hardly ever showed up.
Balin was sort of a friend/mentor role as he was the one who was most friendly to Bilbo. He also was sort of a 'background' teller as he was the oldest and had been around a lot. Also he was lookout. Bombur was a comic-relief useless fat load whose incompetence & weight caused problems. Fili and Kili were the 'young' dwarves but didn't do hardly anything. Dori a couple of times ended up carrying Bilbo around on his back or by his legs and whined about it. Ori, Nori, Oin, Gloin, Bifur, Bofur or Dwalin hardly did a thing at all. By and large, the entire company of dwarves were nothing but a bunch of hostages that had to be rescued. They were captured by trolls, captured by goblins, captured by wolves, captured by spiders, captured by elves, and then cringed behind rocks as Bilbo faced Smaug.

I knew this was going to have to happen though. You can't have a group of 13 dwarves on the big-screen for 2+ hours and have only two or three of them with a personality. I knew that PJ was going to give each of the dwarves a 'character' to play which would go WAY beyond what was provided in the book. So I'm not surprised by this at all. Neither should anyone else. It was inevitable that the dwarves (except Thorin) would probably end up having comic roles just so they weren't entirely without purpose. It will be odd, and seem out of step with the book but there really isn't anything else that can be done. The dwarves have to have SOMETHING to do, or they might as well just have Bilbo and Thorin haul around 12 logs.

>> ^ponceleon:

OMG Yes... I definitely hear where Dystopian is coming from, but frankly I loved the way that Jackson and crew improved upon the original books for the LOTR. Feel free to flame me, but I actually enjoyed the movies MORE than the books on a lot of levels. There are exchanges in the book that just aren't as natural or tight as they are in the movie and I know this is likely heresy, but I feel like there are some which were even improved. The perfect example is the exchange between Bilbo and Gandalf towards the beginning of the FOTR, particularly after the party when they are discussing Bilbo's departure and the leaving of the ring behind...


If you're going to be flamed, then let me get my asbestos jacket, 'cos I agree with you. LOTR is an undisputed classic, but it wasn't without it's problems. Tolkiens pacing was terrible and some of the characters (looking at you, Tom Bombadil) add nothing to the story. The first half of book 6 is essentially "Sam and Frodo keep walking to mount doom", but it really drags.

Jackson and Walsh's story is better structured.

Tolkiens pacing was terrible

I'll dispute that. Story pacing is highly dependant on the reader's level of immersion, and Tolkien was attempting a deeply immersive story where the 'pacing' was largely irrelevant. Many people are quite jaded in this regard, and if the plot isn't moving along at a brisk pace they lose interest. That isn't necessarily the fault of the author, but a matter of a lack of tolerance/patience on the reader. No work of literature can satisfy every reader in that regard - so the end result of whether a book is properly paced is highly individualistic. You have writers on both extremes. Some move so fast that the reader feels like the story is choppy and shallow. Then you have guys like Jordan who spend so much time on so much background that the plot is almost utterly lost. I think Tolkien strikes a masterful middle-ground where he provides depth of background and detail, while not having so much that the average reader feels the plot is moving too slowly. Again, that isn't universal because everyone is different - but the fact that LOTR has endured the test of time and remained a classic proves that it is an assessment that applies to 'most' people.

and some of the characters (looking at you, Tom Bombadil) add nothing to the story.

Depends on what you mean by nothing. The Old Forest, Bombadil, and the Barrow Downs are chapters that some people don't get. If the hobbits had just gone straight to Bree then a lot of people would be happier. It can be argued, but Bombadil gives some background to Middle Earth that Tolkien felt was important. For him (JRR) the work was a literary exercise in establishing what he felt were 'lost' Anglo-Saxon mythology. Iarwin Ben-Adar was part of that world for him, and a part that he felt mattered. He is referenced in the Council of Elrond, and here and there in other parts of LOTR. He may fill no vital plot function, but he certainly adds to the story (not to mention background on the Northern Kingdom, and the Westernesse blades).

The first half of book 6 is essentially "Sam and Frodo keep walking to mount doom", but it really drags.

I felt quite the opposite. I thought that the chapters of Sam & Frodo walking to Mt. Doom were rather a breakneck pace compared to what was happening. But at that point JRR is breaking down both Frodo and Sam physically and spiritually, so it can't just be a rapid "Poof! We're at Mt Doom now!" thing. It had to be a hot, blistering, difficult slog. For it to only be 2 chapters was actually pretty breif I thought. Escaping Cirith Ungol took a chapter - then two chapters were them walking and Mt. Doom itself. All in all I thought it went pretty fast.

It all depends on what folks like, really. Some people can't stand it when Tolkien takes 2 pages here and there to describe the landscape of the Woody End, or a couple pages there to talk about some bit of Rohan's history, or whatever. Some people love it. I personally felt that JK Rowling's pacing blew chunks because she spent tons of time focusing on bullcrap character junk (mostly Harry whining). But some readers just eat that stuff up, so I have to allow that my personal tastes cloud my judgement on Rowling's pacing. It's a matter of taste. What seems irrelevant to you may be pure gold to someone else.

Jackson and Walsh's story is better structured

Don't get me started on Jackson & Walsh. I liked the LOTR movies generally, but these two ham-hands did some pretty awful writing considering the pure perfection of the source material. One example: Aragorn's perfect speech, "We shall make such a chase as will be accounted a marvel among the three kindreds - elves, dwarves, and men. Forth, the Three Hunters!" was changed to the god-awful, "Let's hunt some orc!" I could literally go on for hours listing scripting crime after crime. Jackson/Walsh were NOT either masterful writers, or pacers. When they stuck to the story and didn't jam thier fumble-witted fingers into the pie it was great. The more they took "creative license", the worse it got.

I'll say it - Lord of the Rings was boooooooooooriiiiiiiiinggggggg.

And by that I mean both the books and the films. Self-indulgent and overcooked.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^ponceleon:
OMG Yes... I definitely hear where Dystopian is coming from, but frankly I loved the way that Jackson and crew improved upon the original books for the LOTR. Feel free to flame me, but I actually enjoyed the movies MORE than the books on a lot of levels. There are exchanges in the book that just aren't as natural or tight as they are in the movie and I know this is likely heresy, but I feel like there are some which were even improved. The perfect example is the exchange between Bilbo and Gandalf towards the beginning of the FOTR, particularly after the party when they are discussing Bilbo's departure and the leaving of the ring behind...

If you're going to be flamed, then let me get my asbestos jacket, 'cos I agree with you. LOTR is an undisputed classic, but it wasn't without it's problems. Tolkiens pacing was terrible and some of the characters (looking at you, Tom Bombadil) add nothing to the story. The first half of book 6 is essentially "Sam and Frodo keep walking to mount doom", but it really drags.
Jackson and Walsh's story is better structured.

I'll go even farther...Tolkien was a top-notch world-builder, but he was a crappy storyteller. His stories were dry, boring, and flat-out hard to read (e.g. three names for every individual, all sounding so similar as to be virtually impossible to differentiate). Now, the world was so amazing that it took me nearly two decades of annual re-readings to come to this conclusion. But in the end, I see no other way to describe his work.

Jackson and Co. did a remarkable job of making it better while keeping the world mostly intact.

Tolkein should have been more like Hitchens, then LOTR would have been money.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I have the opposite reaction in that the tone seems too much like LOTR. The Hobbit was a fairly cartoony book - much more of a classic kids adventure than a sprawling epic like LOTR. It should be lighter, funnier and more whimsical than its sequel. I'm guessing Jackson feels a need to unite these two books that take place in the same universe, even though the writing style varies so greatly between them. Either way, he can bank on my $24.


I've always thought of The Hobbit as being a book based on someone "finding There and Back Again" (in a fictional sense) and then making a book from *that*. Sort of a book within a book premise. So though The Hobbit takes place in Middle Earth, just like Lord of the Rings, it's narrative is based on Bilbo's writting (perspective).

This irons out all the kinks in my mind, as clearly the two stories *do* take place in the same universe otherwise. And anywhere there's a difference in tone, or what not can be attributed to Bilbo's perspective on how the tale is told.

dry, boring, and flat-out hard to read (e.g. three names for every individual, all sounding so similar as to be virtually impossible to differentiate)

Reading is all in the eye of the beholder, so I won't say you're WRONG but I will say you are looking at them with an incorrect expectation (were then, and still are).

DRY & BORING: Tolkien wrote the book with a 'high' style. He makes no apologies for it. He did not write the novel in such a way as to please the varying sensibilities of people. Some people today want 'grit', others want speed, or breathless action, or any one a hundred different tastes. If you read the books and want those other things, then your experience will be lacking.

HARD TO READ: Tolkien was a professor of philology, and wrote accordingly. Like Wells, Lewis, and others of his stripe - he did not pull his linguistic punches (much). As far as the names are concerned, you just have to deal with that because he was using the same time-honored literary device as was used in Beowulf where the recitation of a person's many names/titles is done with a reverence akin to reciting one's lineage and history. He doesn't do it to be redundant or repetitive. He does it for a reason - to tell you the person's story.

I've had this conversation with many. Not everyone likes Tolkien, and that's fine. But I dispute the statement that his work was boring, hard to read, or dry. JRR was a craftsman of the language the like of which simply does not exist today. That isn't idle brag. He had a skillset that has been lost to us. No one exists that can do what he did. Many try to ape his style, but they come off as pale shadows. And not only was he a master of the language in a technical sense, but he was also highly skilled at writing as well. You only get that combination once in a thousand years.

When you read - you have to look at the beauty of the language, the power of the words, and the light and depth of the setting & themes. There are passages and words in LOTR that never fail to send chills through me from top to bottom. I have not found any modern writer who comes close to that. Yes, I've read many who told excellent stories, or could write great characters, or who could generate good atmosphere, or good settings, et al. But none have used language so powerfully or with such light in such a way as to move the soul. LOTR is a work in which there is a true 'aura' beyond the typical book trance from other works. Again, if you go in looking for something else then, brother, you're just looking at it the wrong way.

So, you're not wrong, you're just looking at it the wrong way. But you're not wrong.

Bye!

About fucking time. Next up, he needs to do the Chronicles of Amber.

>> ^kymbos:

I'll say it - Lord of the Rings was boooooooooooriiiiiiiiinggggggg.
And by that I mean both the books and the films. Self-indulgent and overcooked.


Dear John,

I used to love you, felt like we had a deeper connection you know, like we got each other. How wrong can a person be.

Jaesus, it's just a book/film/whatever.

Read Lord of the Flies, you people - it might actually make you think.

I'm not sure how to feel about this one. The hobbits were my least favorite part of LOTR. I'm still going to see it, though...

>> ^kymbos:

Jaesus, it's just a book/film/whatever.
Read Lord of the Flies, you people - it might actually make you think.


About what? What happens if we're all mean to each other?

I think I understand why some people don't like LOTR. When I was a kid playing Dungeons and Dragons, I used to think that LOTR was a D&D rip-off! But eventually I read it. I hardly read any fantasy at all, in fact, "Game of Thrones" is the only other medieval fantasy I've ever read. But I do have a soft spot in my heart for LOTR. Actually, my friend is an amateur bookbinder and we're working on an 11" by 17" hand-printed leather and vellum copy. So yeah, I guess you could say I'm a little crazy about the subject.

Still, Tolkien had his issues like every other author. I for one can't wait for the new movie. It's obvious that Peter Jackson has given so much of his own life and culture to the movies that I find them beautiful to watch in their own right. He worked so hard making every tiny little detail. In fact, the only thing that gets tedious for me, weirdly enough, are all the battle scenes. But I love how everything looks like a Led Zeppelin cover though. And I love how the orcs and goblins all have kiwi accents. That's just hilarious.

HA! LOTF vs LOTR!

Sometimes I forget how alone I am in not getting into LOTR. I actually used to read a lot of fantasy, but stopped in my mid-teens. I really just find LOTR very self-indulgent. I had the same experience with the films that I had with the books - I got halfway through the second one (of three - someone mentioned six books above?) and just thought "fuck it, this is taking far too long". We all knew he was going to get to the mountain - why write about it forever? And then I thought, well, not only do we know he's going to get to the mountain, we also know he's going to struggle with gollum and then overcome and throw the thing in the mountain. I was probably too young when I first read it (like 11 or so), but I just skipped to the end, only to find that (from distant memory) there are several chapters after he throws the ring in to tie things up. Several chapters! Ugh.

Tolkein to me is the Stanley Kubrik of fiction books - to fans he's untouchable; to the few of us who aren't into it, he's long-winded and self-indulgent.

People are going to throw things at me for saying this, but he could have written a much better story in two books than three.

Tolkein to me is the Stanley Kubrik of fiction books - to fans he's untouchable; to the few of us who aren't into it, he's long-winded and self-indulgent. People are going to throw things at me for saying this, but he could have written a much better story in two books than three

No one is going to throw things at you. Reading is a very individual experience. Not everyone is going to or has to like the same stuff any more than they have to like the same clothes or food. Your tastes in literature are just different. Nothing wrong with that.

I personally felt that every Harry Potter book (after Azkaban) could be cut in half and it would have made a far better reading experience. But to some people that would be blasphemy. I got sick of JK "The Exposition" Rowling pulling the Scooby-Doo revelation of the "Old Man Jenkins du jour" mystery at the end of every book. She took chapters and chapters to do it - sometimes hundreds of pages - and she's so addicted to exposition that she invented entire plot devices just so she could do more of them (Pensieve, I'm lookin' at you). But to some readers that was good stuff. Me - I skimmed right past it. If Tolkien's descriptions of terrain, histories, and such bog you down then just skim 'em.

Sometimes I feel bad that some folks don't get the same soul-rush I get from LOTR's language though. But there it is. You either appreciate that aspect of a text or you don't. To some people JRR's perfect craftsmanship, literary power, and brightness of theme/setting have no value - just as Rowling's redundant expositions mean nothing to me.

When I walked out of my first showing of the Fellowship of the Ring movie, I was pretty jazzed. I felt the movie (while having flaws) still managed to capture the essence of the story which was loyalty, honor, and sacrifice in the face of temptation and darkness. I heard some gal talking to her friend walking out of the movie saying how boring it was, how stupid parts were, and how the whole thing dragged out way longer than it should. Two different people with totally different opinions about the same thing. One person saw value, depth, and goodness. The other was just bored. Same logic applies to the book.

<< Throws things @kymbos.

Stewart Lee said it best, I think. To paraphrase: "No, I haven't read the latest Harry Potter book, because I'm a 46 year old man. I have, however, read the complete works of the poet and visionary William Blake, so fuck off!"

>> ^therealblankman:

>> ^Yogi:
What book?

A book is a medium of communicating information. Kind of like an iPad, but it needs fewer batteries. Books are no longer popular among the general populace, and are almost exclusively used by Communists, Liberals, Intellectuals and other Nazis.


But that's not important right now.

>> ^kymbos:

...We all knew he was going to get to the mountain - why write about it forever? And then I thought, well, not only do we know he's going to get to the mountain, we also know he's going to struggle with gollum and then overcome and throw the thing in the mountain. I was probably too young when I first read it (like 11 or so), but I just skipped to the end, only to find that (from distant memory) there are several chapters after he throws the ring in to tie things up. Several chapters! Ugh...


But the book isn't about Frodo throwing the ring into the mountain. It's about the change of religions and a new mythology overtaking the old. Tolkien was a christian, but I think he was sad to see how previous ages of the world lost their power and disappeared for all time.

Really? Man, that sounds even more boring than I thought.

>> ^Fantomas:

Some of those dwarves look far too human.


I'll have to agree with you there. Way too slim & no beard to speak of.

Check out this pic.

http://the-hobbitmovie.com/meet-hobbit-dwarves-fili-and-kili/

They look all slender and "slightly" rugged, they look more like Elves. Dwarves are supposed to be all short and stocky. I dunno..

*Edit: On second watch, it's mostly Thorin & Kili..

WTF book were you reading?
>> ^Ryjkyj:


It's about the change of religions and a new mythology overtaking the old.

Just finished watching The Office (UK) for the first time and discovered the actor who played Tim Canterbury portrays Bilbo Baggins in this flick. Neat.

well yes but WHY HAVE YOU NOT WATCHED SHERLOCK YET FUUUUUUUUUUUU >> ^lucky760:

Just finished watching The Office (UK) for the first time and discovered the actor who played Tim Canterbury portrays Bilbo Baggins in this flick. Neat.

>> ^berticus:

well yes but WHY HAVE YOU NOT WATCHED SHERLOCK YET FUUUUUUUUUUUU >> ^lucky760:
Just finished watching The Office (UK) for the first time and discovered the actor who played Tim Canterbury portrays Bilbo Baggins in this flick. Neat.



I don't know how to use google. Can you please link me to what it is you're referring to? I'd love to check out some new quality material. Is this Sherlock you speak of an ongoing series or a film or a mini-series, or...?

Oh yeah, sure, here's the link.
>> ^lucky760:

>> ^berticus:
well yes but WHY HAVE YOU NOT WATCHED SHERLOCK YET FUUUUUUUUUUUU >> ^lucky760:
Just finished watching The Office (UK) for the first time and discovered the actor who played Tim Canterbury portrays Bilbo Baggins in this flick. Neat.


I don't know how to use google. Can you please link me to what it is you're referring to? I'd love to check out some new quality material. Is this Sherlock you speak of an ongoing series or a film or a mini-series, or...?

Really? Sherlock is a great show... you should be sure to check it out. If you have Netflix instant, the first season is on there... and on PBS Masterpice page for free if you don't have Netflix.... Only 3 episodes to a season (2 seasons so far), each about an hour and a half long.
I don't think I'll be able to do the American remake of Sherlock though...

>> ^lucky760:

>> ^berticus:
well yes but WHY HAVE YOU NOT WATCHED SHERLOCK YET FUUUUUUUUUUUU >> ^lucky760:
Just finished watching The Office (UK) for the first time and discovered the actor who played Tim Canterbury portrays Bilbo Baggins in this flick. Neat.


I don't know how to use google. Can you please link me to what it is you're referring to? I'd love to check out some new quality material. Is this Sherlock you speak of an ongoing series or a film or a mini-series, or...?

Thanks for not being too arrogant to provide a short description. There is surprisingly little info about the show, but I was able to find all six episodes available for download. Thus far I've seen the first and enjoyed it rather thoroughly. It's exactly my type of show. And I love Jim Canterbury as Dr. Watson. I wonder if Sherlock was originally conceived as a homosexual.

Are you saying they're working on creating a US version of this BBC series?

>> ^RFlagg:

Really? Sherlock is a great show... you should be sure to check it out. If you have Netflix instant, the first season is on there... and on PBS Masterpice page for free if you don't have Netflix.... Only 3 episodes to a season (2 seasons so far), each about an hour and a half long.
I don't think I'll be able to do the American remake of Sherlock though...
>> ^lucky760:
>> ^berticus:
well yes but WHY HAVE YOU NOT WATCHED SHERLOCK YET FUUUUUUUUUUUU >> ^lucky760:
Just finished watching The Office (UK) for the first time and discovered the actor who played Tim Canterbury portrays Bilbo Baggins in this flick. Neat.


I don't know how to use google. Can you please link me to what it is you're referring to? I'd love to check out some new quality material. Is this Sherlock you speak of an ongoing series or a film or a mini-series, or...?

The American version will star Jonny Lee Miller as Holmes in New York (I think he's playing an American Holmes as well, not "these are Holmes's adventures while in America"). The show will be on CBS and is called Elementary. I don't think it will be a full Americanization of the show, like Office or Being Human, but just doing the same thing, a modern day Sherlock Holmes, just based in America... of course CBS could still opt out if they don't like the pilot...

>> ^lucky760:

Thanks for not being too arrogant to provide a short description. There is surprisingly little info about the show, but I was able to find all six episodes available for download. Thus far I've seen the first and enjoyed it rather thoroughly. It's exactly my type of show. And I love Jim Canterbury as Dr. Watson. I wonder if Sherlock was originally conceived as a homosexual.
Are you saying they're working on creating a US version of this BBC series?
>> ^RFlagg:
Really? Sherlock is a great show... you should be sure to check it out. If you have Netflix instant, the first season is on there... and on PBS Masterpice page for free if you don't have Netflix.... Only 3 episodes to a season (2 seasons so far), each about an hour and a half long.
I don't think I'll be able to do the American remake of Sherlock though...

*dead

Automatically replaced video embed code with backup #4775 (supplied by member raverman) - video declared dead by member xxovercastxx.