It's still not a "Trilogy".

Okay, so, I'm sure we are all very aware by now in the bowels of the geek dome that a choice has been made via Warner Brothers, Paramount and Peter Jackson to go ahead and give The Hobbit a 3rd film. This may seem strange, thinking, well, Lord of the Rings is nearly 3 times as long as The Hobbit and it only has 3 films.. that's true.. but those three films are also all enormous films, and the extended editions routinely run past 3+ hours. From a logistical standpoint, the reason why we got the two different versions of Lord of the Rings, or didn't get more than 3 films, is simply because the film making world was different then. Lord of the Rings is what clued Hollywood into the fact that people would pay to see a multi-part film and would happily come back year after year with no significant drop off. They've seen repeated it with Harry Potter and Twilight, each splitting their respective finales into extra pieces.

Another reason they've likely chosen to do this is, that it's the bottom of the barrel for Tolkien films. Once this is done, all they can do is Re-Make the Lord of the Rings, which I've already read rumours online that they are planning a 3D conversion (in reality they still have so much unused footage, they could theoretically turn the Lord of the Rings into six, 2+ hour long films, and thats sort of what the Extended Editions did anyway) of the films to follow the release of the Hobbit.. meaning that for the next 6-7 years you might just have a Hobbit on the big screen come Christmas time.

The fact they've chosen to do this, probably in lieu of releasing 'Extended' cuts of the Two Hobbit films later, and cutting down on the amount of money they could make in the process, instead having been decided to simply make three films. This isn't a big deal. The Hobbit does have enough set pieces to make this into a third film, especially when you start to add in material from the Appendices of Lord of the Rings. Which, by the way, I've got no problem with them doing. I just wish they had access to the abandoned chapters of Return of the King which are found in "Unfinished Tales".. as they really tie The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings together in a way which makes it obvious, not only how sneaky and dangerous Gandalf really is, but also how long he's be aware of the threat posed and has been trying to stop it. They alas, do not have access to that material and so we will simply have to make do with what they can manage without it.

Now for the not as good bit. My biggest problem with The Lord of the Rings, were the unneeded changes to characters, such as Faramir, Aragorn, Denethor and Theoden.  Effectively, if they were a male with power in the book, presented as noble, uncorruptable, or otherwise wise.. two of the three film makers went out of their way to make sure the audiences didn't see that. Fran Walsh and Phillapa Boyens, whatever their status to Peter Jackson, are, in my opinion, hacks. They have a political angle they wanted to push, and did so at the expense of someone elses characters. Aragorn had to be shown as dithering and weak, Faramir as covetous and jealous of his brother Boromir, Denethor shown, not as despairing but as cowardly, and Theoden as spiteful. In other words, the script writers took issue with the idea of males exhibiting only noble qualities and as such sought to drag them down a bit. Even Elrond and Frodo weren't immune from this selective personality re-writing.

They also bolstered the female characters in ways which don't really always make sense. Eowyn cooking soup is, kind of preposterous.. and she was about as strong and willful a character as you could ever want. There's a reason all those feminist bra burning hippies in the 60's named their daughters after her. In a word, Eowyn kicks 10 kinds of ass, and nothing the film makers could add could make her any better. Arwen is a totally different story though.. They not only made her into something she wasn't meant to be, but did it in a completely slipshod manner. The whole bit in Fellowship of Arwen rescuing Frodo from the ringwraiths is groan inducing. Thank goodness saner heads prevailed and we weren't treated to Arwen leading the charge to relieve Helms Deep! Yet again, poor Glorfindel gets the axe.

Beyond a few other very small things, these character changes I found to be the most grating. The look of the films was pitch perfect, (though I'll admit I've always been an Alan Lee and John Howe fan.. so for fans of the Hildebrandts or Nasmith I can see where the films wouldn't work for you, and I'm sorry) the scenery was great, the sets, locations, and 90% of the pacing made the films work for me.. but theres always that little niggling worm in my head that pulls me out of the picture when one of these character assassinations rears it's head.

With the news of a third Hobbit film, I'm more worried than ever that the extra length provided by this format will simply allow Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens to give more screen time to their Mary Sue Fanfic character Taurial. This will be the first time they've actually gone all the way and simply created a new named character out of whole cloth, the only reason for it is, the film makers felt, the movie "Needed a Vagina". This is delicate territory, since, I'll readily admit that Tolkien didn't have very many female characters, but the idea that an adaption of his work needed to have one is a bit preposterous. Yes, The Hobbit, is a kids book, but the story it tells isn't a kids story. It's an adult's story. It's a war story. That's what made Eowyn's choice so spectacular. This is like, if Ridley Scott had decided when he got down to brass tacks on filming Mark Bowden's "Black Hawk Down" (And it is based on the book, since it continues some of the inconsistencies that the book has) that they just really needed one of the Army Rangers or Delta Operators to be female... No logical reason for it.. just cause.

Just because we have different sensibilities today than the author did 60 years ago, doesn't give us the right to change his artistic vision, and on this note I'll not beat around the bush, in my opinion, the Author's art, is more important than the Filmmaker's art. The Filmmaker's are simply ADAPTING, some one elses art, and therefore have no rights in regards what can be changed.

So, that rant out of my system I can get down to the other thing that is bugging me.

The Hobbit, is not a Trilogy. It doesn't matter that there are 3 films. 3-films-in-1. Just like the thing that used to be on the old Transformers boxes.. 2 toys in 1! It is 3 pieces of a single film, exactly the same way that The Lord of the Rings is, by the directors own admission, he views them as a SINGLE FILM. ( I still hold out hope one day we will get a cut which reflects that, a single opening and closing credits sequence, and several intermissions) When it all finishes up, Peter Jackson will have adapted 2 books, into 2 films, each split into 3 parts.

The Hobbit, and The Lord of the Rings, is a DUOLOGY. They are a Book, and a Sequel to that book.


If you have 3 courses in a meal, it's still just 1 meal, it's not a Trilogy of meals. It doesn't matter how many "Volumes" are present in the box set.. it's not a Quadrilogy, Trilogy, Quintology, or any thing else. Only by adding in the Silmarillion do you then get a 'Trilogy'. I realize that this is me beating a dead horse, people will never stop calling these books/films a Trilogy.. because they can't get it through their head that simply having 3 of something doesn't make it a Trilogy.

Even with all that being said, I still can't wait to see the adaption, I will probably like it more than I dislike it, and I will happily pay to go and see it.

What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie?

More apt words I cannot think of. Today would mark the 106th Birthday of Robert E. Howard. It's difficult to know what he would think of the world today. In many ways he was abjectly progressive. His views on Women especially set him apart from the rest of his generation. In other ways he was reactionary, especially if he was writing a letter to a Non Texan or a Non Southerner. But one thing he wasn't, and that was normal. There is no mistaking that Bob was a Texan through and through. So he wasn't exactly a square peg in a round hole, but he had a few rough edges that kept him from fitting comfortably. This discomfort was probably a great factor in his imaginative output. The output which inspired so many people, lead to the creation of so many things, movies, music, games, endless streams of novels written in imitation of the master.

Though it may cause discomfort, Fitting in, isn't supposed to be mandatory. It confers certain social advancements. It most certainly isn't supposed to be dangerous. If you've read my ramblings for any length of time then you know I'm an advocate for the outsider. The kid who got picked on for playing D&D. The boy with long hair. The girl who likes metal and has a Mohawk. The guy in Texas who writes fantasy stories instead of getting a real job. All these things come with their downsides, lack of job opportunities, social ostracism, or even outright pariah status in school. This has its own downsides. It leads to depression, anxiety, people becoming stranger because they retreat into themselves to escape a world they don't fit into. Sometimes, like Robert E. Howard, they feel they have no alternative but to depart this world for another.

But that is a personal choice, those of us who survive are merely left to wonder why. Our status as bystanders disqualifies us from ever fully understanding the inner workings of another person. We should be understanding of others differences. Differences and hobbies and interests aren't supposed to be damning enough to take your entire childhood away. Being a Nerd or a Goth or an Emo or a Geek isn't supposed to be Dangerous. But in Arkansas that's exactly what it was.

I'm sure you all are aware of the nausea inducing West Memphis 3 case. Where a podunk town railroaded three boys into prison for the murder of 3 children, using as evidence heavy metal albums, black clothes and Stephen King novels to support an outlandish hypothesis involving ritual sacrifice and Satan worship. They were recently released, with the understanding that they admit they did it. It allowed some people in Arkansas with severe indigestion to sleep more soundly, but it didn't clear the boys names, it didn't give them their adolescence back. Unfortunately this rescue from the cusp of death wasn't at the hands of Roland Deschain, Jireal, Conan and Aragorn riding to the judges house and forcing him to recant his misguided decision, to crawl on bended knee to beg forgiveness for his sins, to ride an ass backwards in front of the gates of Jerusalem so that all might know his foolishness. The only reason it happened it all is because a filmmaker from New Zealand with deep pockets took it upon himself to do something to right this wrong.

Just because they are out of jail doesn't mean it's over. They still have a great big GUILTY next to their names. The flaws unearthed by this injustice are still built into the system. It could happen again. Remember that. If you don't fit in, This could happen again. No I think it will happen again, probably has happened again already and we just don't know about it because it didn't get media attention. Didn't get musicians and actors and filmmakers attentions.

It is my hope that Peter Jackson's recently produced West of Memphis documentary has just premiered at Sundance. If nothing else, if it can be prevented from happening again, then something good will have come out of this.

It is important for us to accept others as they are. I want to wrap up by talking about Bob Howard. A Man who I feel like I almost know but don't quite. He didn't quite fit in. I'm not going to postulate on why he killed himself. That's not fair to him. He knows why he did it. I wonder if he had found more acceptance in life if he would have felt it his only option. I wonder if these three boys had lived somewhere, where being different wasn't a sin, if there would have been another option.

Unexpected, but highly anticipated.

So does that answer the question?

Of how Elijah wood and Ian Holm and possibly other of the Lord of the Rings actors feature in the The Hobbit.

According to a new interview with Elijah Wood, it seems as if they will be working on a sort of framing device. Using the concept of "There and Back again", the book that Bilbo is writing at the beginning of the The Fellowship of the Ring, and that Frodo/Sam Finish at the end of the Return of the King. I had wondered how exactly they had planned to include these actors, and I can't help but think that it may not be such a bad plan.

It also could explain some of the other oddities we've come to know about the movie(s). Effectively showing it two different ways, one how Bilbo has written it, and then 'The True story'. This isn't much of a divergence, since Bilbo omitting information was used in the stories themselves.

It also mentions again a new character named Taurial, who seems to be some sort of elven maiden in Mirkwood. I've started to see this name brought up a lot lately, when previously we repeatedly saw the name Itaril and "Female Elf Warrior" next too it.. Is it possible that Taurial the elven maiden has replaced Itaril the Female Elf warrior? or are we simply going to get stuck with both of them?

I think that beyond additions such as Itaril/Taurial, the filmmakers are going out of their way to play up as many links between the two film series. Thats probably an extremely good idea in order to minimize the audience alienation felt when they go in expecting to see characters that are impossible to include in the Hobbit story itself. But as a framing sequence it will work out much better.

Of course, this could be incorrect and Elijah Wood is simply not being let in on exactly what Jackson/Fralippa are doing. I suppose we will find out December of next year though.

Another Big Blu Ray release for the year.

The Extended cuts of Peter Jackson's Adaption of the Lord of the Rings will be making their way to Blu Ray later this year hot on the heals of Star Wars. This makes obvious sense in order to keep the brand awareness for the run up to the first Hobbit movie coming out hopefully December of 2012.


I however am not terribly enthusiastic about it. I've already got the extended Editions on DVD, and the early information suggests that the blu rays will simply be higher definition transfers of those original Extended edition with no additional material.. be it extra scenes or supplementary material.. of which there exists at least 4 sets so far.. From the Theatrical 2 disc sets, 4 disc extended cuts, 2 disc extended cuts, and Theatrical blu ray set.. thats a lot of supplementary material that requires a lot of extra helpings in order to collect together.

The Rumoured "Ultimate Edition" box set, which presumably would contain all of this material is still just that.. Rumoured.. much like the enormous box set of the Howard Shore scores.. which was supposed to be released 2 years ago but has not yet surfaced.. I think I can be patient however.

It's a reasonable certainty that there are at least a few more scenes finished, mainly from Fellowship and from the Two Towers.. and these are scenes which explain why characters appearances change from one scene to another. The disheveled appearance of Legolas on the platform in Lorien in obverse of his relative cleanliness upon leaving Moria is explained by a running battle which they barely survive only because of Haldir's intervention. And another is an extended version of the "Orc Count" after Helm's Deep. You can see some stills from both of these, and indeed scenarios for replaying them in Games Workshop's rulebooks for the miniatures games that they released for those two movies.

I'd love to see these two scenes added into the film, they are scenes which make sense and would add to the overall experience.. certainly more so than a drinking contest with dwarven farting or pot jokes courtesy of Cheech Merry and Pippin Chong. But what I would really want, and would have to have, in order for it to be considered an Ultimate edition by me.. would be a completely new edit of the 3 films, into one multi-disc film.. And all of the supplementary material from all of the difference versions... thats what it would really take to get me to rebuy the movies for a 3rd time.

Time to call it a day, Mr. Jackson?

According to Theonering.net, and their various sources.. the already troubled adaption of the Hobbit has hit yet another problem. This time, due to some Minuscule new Zealand actors union.

I have very little time for Unions when it comes to anything to do with the film industry.. they aren't essential to the welfare of the Nation or planet the way that air traffic controllers or coal miners or teachers or firefighters are. And since we are still feeling the effects of the 2008 SWG strike.. in other words I hold them responsible for Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.. and a sin of that sort takes a long time to atone for.

Now, Ian Mckellen, Hugo Weaving and Cate Blanchett are all making noise that they may decline to be in "The Hobbit" unless Warner Brothers/MGM and Peter Jackson agree to the demands of this Union. So no Gandalf, no Elrond, and no White Council scene.

I'm going to admit, I'm looking at this only from my perspective. I want the adaptions made, I wanted them made back in 2004, and feel that a lot of the problems the production has been beset by are Peter Jackson's Fault alone. He didn't strike while the iron was hot, he dawdled and made King Kong and the Lovely bones.. two movies which vastly underperformed when compared to the Rings adaptions. I understand that, The Lord of the Rings was an immense undertaking, it was a huge project which consumed nearly a decade of his life. But I still feel that a large chunk of the production problems rest on his shoulders.

But the financial squabbles have plagued the Tolkien adaption since Return of the King swept the Oscars. And they cannot be laid at the feet of Peter Jackson alone. No one cared when they didn't think it was going to make any money.. And yes, a lot of the actors who were in the Rings adaption were treated very shabbily from all indications. The financial problems have come from all directions, from the Tolkien Estate, from Tolkien Enterprises, from New Line, from Peter Jackson, from Warner Brothers. Not even taking into account MGM's own financial problems, which are essentially the Hobbit's financial problems because of the ridiculous Intellectual property laws at work.

But at this point, I feel that if it's going to turn into such a fiasco that they may have to move the production to eastern Europe (following in the footsteps of Voyage of the Dawn Treader) and then do without the few actors who would bring continuity to the new production from the previous films.. it simply isn't worth doing.

It's a huge screw up, and as always, the only people who truly lose out here are the fans, that and the non union people in New Zealand who would stand to make a tremendous amount of money off of the production, not to mention the upsurge in tourism.

I for one, as a fan, am tired of this constant march of good news, bad news. Every time we think something might be maybe going to happen, an actor yaps their gob or column of figures dosen't add up right and we are back to waiting.

So when is it time to throw in the towel?