The Campaign Builder's Guild

The titles of the two Hobbit movies were just announced yesterday:

"The first film, titled 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey,' will be released on December 14, 2012. The second film, titled 'The Hobbit: There and Back Again,' is slated for release the following year, on December 13, 2013."

So I figured why not create an official discussion thread for the two films. Granted they won't be released for a year and a half (2 and a half for T&BA) but we may as well strike well the iron is hot. So let's get this discussion going!

 A few weeks ago, Peter Jackson released a special behind-the-scenes first look at the movies (http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150223186041807), showcasing some of the acting talent, wardrobe and sets. The video is great, if for no other reason than to see the all the cool stuff going on in the background. Some of the biggest casting news for the movies lately has been the fact that Stephen Fry and Orlando Bloom will be in the films. No one knows how Bloom's character will fit into the movies but there has been much speculation (ranging from flash-forward scenes, to him hanging out with Elrond randomly, to him walking around in the background). It was confirmed earlier today that Benedict Cumberbatch will be in the film as well, though no one know which character he will play.

I'm really disappointed that Del Toro is no longer directing this.

Benedict Cumberbatch is one of the coolest names ever.

Wait what?

No Del Toro?

*cries*

Also:

No 3D.

Just, no.

Will be nice! It's in a while though.

Quote from: Safety-not-guaranteed AngelWait what?

No Del Toro?

*cries*

Also:

No 3D.

Just, no.

Do you mean "no 3D" in the sense that the film isn't going to be in 3D? I was curious because I wasn't sure if it'd be in 3D or not (I'd prefer the latter, though it really depends on if they go the "Avatar style" of 3D, where it's meant to compliment the immersion of the film, or the other, all too frequent style, where stuff just obnoxiously pops out at you).

The movie is being shot in 3D.

Sadly I have yet to see a movie where the 3D didn't feel like a gimmick meant to pry three extra dollars out of my wallet. Honestly, even in Avatar, outside of the human computer screens, the 3D didn't really add anything to the experience. Additionally, there are a lot of people that can't see 3D, due to various medical problems, so I really hope the fad dies soon.

I really hope they offer a non-3d version in the theaters as if they don't I won't be able to see it :(

I have one of those aforementioned medical problems. I'm nearsighted so not only can I not wear the 3d glasses (my normal glasses which let me see more than a blur on the big screen get in the way), but if I hold them in front of my eyes I get serious migraines due to the fact that my condition screws with my depth perception in subtle ways that disagree with 3d movies.

Nomadic: I am in a similar situation. I can still wear 3D glasses over my own, but it subtly shifts perspective and blurs the image.

Weave: I mean damn 3D to hell. It doesn't make movies better. In fact, by separating the image into numerous planes, it renders images conspicuously two-dimensional. I outgrew that gimmick the day I lost my dinotopia pop-up book.

Quote from: Elemental_ElfThe movie is being shot in 3D.

Sadly I have yet to see a movie where the 3D didn't feel like a gimmick meant to pry three extra dollars out of my wallet. Honestly, even in Avatar, outside of the human computer screens, the 3D didn't really add anything to the experience. Additionally, there are a lot of people that can't see 3D, due to various medical problems, so I really hope the fad dies soon.

Oh, don't get me wrong: the whole 3D thing is a gimmick regardless of the film. The tickets are ridiculously expensive at my local theatre. I just figure that if they insist on having it, they at least go for the less annoying one.

I'm also hoping the fad dies soon as well. But this is about the Hobbit, not 3D, so I digress.

I've been so damn excited for these films for ages. I'm a little sad that Del Toro isn't with it anymore, but I guess I have a good degree of faith that Peter Jackson can put out two excellent films, if not two excellent and somewhat lengthy films. I'll also be seeing the soon to be re-screened versions of the LotR trilogy with my gaming group and some of our friends (and unexcited girlfriends) who haven't yet seen the films. Can't wait!

You guys could always buy a pair of 2D glasses!

http://www.2d-glasses.com/

I don't enjoy the 3D thing at all. For Avatar, it made things blurry and ruined the only good thing about that movie.

I've seen about 3 films in 3D. Avatar used it to decent effect; Toy Story 3 was nearly ruined for me because of it; a documentary about space used it to decent effect. It seems that space movies are really the only appropriate use for 3D.

Quote from: Light DragonI've seen about 3 films in 3D. Avatar used it to decent effect; Toy Story 3 was nearly ruined for me because of it; a documentary about space used it to decent effect. It seems that space movies are really the only appropriate use for 3D.

I saw Alice and Wonderland in 3D... It was terrible.

So I'm hoping the Hobbit's 3D will be at least the quality of Avatar and I pray that they release a normal 2D version of the film.

>>So I'm hoping the Hobbit's 3D will be at least the quality of Avatar and I pray that they release a normal 2D version of the film.

I agree. I am making a point to avoid 3D films after being disappointed Toy Story in 3D. Regrettably, a few cinemas in my area have converted about a 3d of their screens to 3D... thus making it difficult to see non-3D films.

For a movie this big, they will have both.

I just hope the Midnight showing isn't in 3D...

Quote from: Elemental_ElfI just hope the Midnight showing isn't in 3D...

I'm betting it will be.

Quote from: Weave

Quote from: Elemental_ElfI just hope the Midnight showing isn't in 3D...

I'm betting it will be.

I am going to bet against you and hope some theatre in town proves you wrong! :)

If it's only one or the other, it will probably be in 3D. As long as you live near a fair sized city, there will quite likely be both.

So, for an entirely different topic of conversation, has anybody heard anything about how they will be treating the various... uh, musical interludes of the book?  LotR had some songs too but they were cut entirely for the film.  I'm not saying that was necessarily something I missed, but I seem to remember the Hobbit had more of them, and I might be sad if I don't get to hear dwarves singing about Bilbo's plates.

On the other hand, I can't really seeing Jacksonian goblins/orcs singing "Ho, ho, my lad!"

Jackson did say that he understood that LOTR was darker than the hobbit and he plans on making that distinction by having the hobbit be a bit more cheerful. Here's hoping we get to hear dwarves singing about smashing plates and delving halls

[blockquote=Polycarp!]LotR had some songs too but they were cut entirely for the film. [/blockquote]
There were actually quite a few songs in the LOTR movies: Pippin's two songs for Denethor, Pippin/Merry's drinking song in the Prancing Pony, Aragorn's Lay of Luthien, Eowyn's lament for Theodred, and a lot of Elvish singing.  My guess is that there will be songs, but they won't always be long, and sometimes we might see only a part of them.

Edit: Aragorn also sings at his coronation, and Gollum even sings a fishing song!  They definitely cut some songs, but the important ones were there...

Quote from: Steerpike[blockquote=Polycarp!]LotR had some songs too but they were cut entirely for the film. [/blockquote]
There were actually quite a few songs in the LOTR movies: Pippin's two songs for Denethor, Pippin/Merry's drinking song in the Prancing Pony, Aragorn's Lay of Luthien, Eowyn's lament for Theodred, and a lot of Elvish singing.  My guess is that there will be songs, but they won't always be long, and sometimes we might see only a part of them.

Edit: Aragorn also sings at his coronation, and Gollum even sings a fishing song!  They definitely cut some songs, but the important ones were there...

Exactly! There was a lot of singing in the Trilogy, the songs just weren't shoved in your face like a Bollywood Musical.

EDIT: Just for fun - Gollum's Fish Song:

[/i]

Quote from: SteerpikeThere were actually quite a few songs in the LOTR movies: Pippin's two songs for Denethor, Pippin/Merry's drinking song in the Prancing Pony, Aragorn's Lay of Luthien, Eowyn's lament for Theodred, and a lot of Elvish singing.  My guess is that there will be songs, but they won't always be long, and sometimes we might see only a part of them.

Songs that only came out in the extended version don't count!  But you're right, there was some in the movie.  I don't recall whether they were in the book or not, though.

A lot of them were mixed around or taken from different bits of the book.

I'd forgotten a lot of that was from the extended cuts - I haven't seen the theatrical versions in a long time!

2 notes.  
I really hate it when they make the prequel after the proper epic.  I probably won't go to see it, just due to this.

The other is that I was taught music for many of the songs in the hobbit back in grade school.  SOme of my more batty teachers did a 'hobbit' play.  I played Elrond.

Heh.  My first introduction to LotR was my dad reading it to me when I was about 6 or so.  He did an extremely thick Yorkshire accent for Sam...

>>No one knows how Bloom's character will fit into the movies

What? You've never heard that Legolas is really Thorin's long lost cousin who is half-elf and half-dwarf, a dwelf? :D

Legolas was a Silvan Elf (of the Woodland Realm i.e. Mirkwood) and is the son of King Thranduil, the Elvenking, who imprisons the Dwarves for trespassing and refusing to state their intentions.  Thus it is most likely that we'll see Legolas in the hall of the Elvenking.  He will also almost certainly be present at the Battle of Five Armies.

Quote from: LordVreeg 2 notes.  
I really hate it when they make the prequel after the proper epic.  I probably won't go to see it, just due to this.

Its not like this is Star Wars - you already know the story, the world of LotR won't be ruined by Midi-chlorians or anything.

Quotethe world of LotR won't be ruined by Midi-chlorians or anything

was[/i]???

Quote from: Name-Changing Angel

Quotethe world of LotR won't be ruined by Midi-chlorians or anything

was[/i]???

Peter Jackson is no Spielberg, but he's also not Lucas. I feel fairly safe trusting him with something I grew up with (unlike Micheal Bay). Was LotR as good as the books? That's arguable but I'm leaning towards no. Was it bad? Heck no, it was top notch.

I'm taking the piss of course. Peter Jackson loves the Tolkien mythos too much to mess with it like that.

And Michael bay? What did he screw up?

I'm looking forward to it. Peter Jackson did a great job with LOTR (in my opinion, at least), and The Hobbit is something that inherently lends itself better to screen adaptation (again, in my opinion.) Still, I'm kind of nervous - The Hobbit was one of the things that got me into fantasy literature, far more than LOTR did, so I'm much more emotionally invested in it than I was in the LOTR movies.

Still, Angel's point is well taken - Jackson seems to love the mythos, and he's probably the only director I'd really trust with it. So I'm crossing my fingers and waiting a year and a half, hoping for validation.

Quote from: MyselfAnd Michael bay? What did he screw up?

Other than ruining my innocent youthful love of explosions and reckless mayhem...

Quote from: Name-Changing Angel

Quote from: Nomadic

Quote from: Name-Changing Angel

Quote from: Renaissance Angel

Quote from: MyselfAnd Michael bay? What did he screw up?

Michael Bay didn't ruin your childhood - Shia LaBeouf did. Heck he ruined Transformers and then he ruined Indiana Jones!

Ohh, we're talking about transformers.

I was thinking of his obsessive fetishisation of on-screen chaos to the point of unintelligibility (which is in itself simply too long a word)...

Quote from: Elemental_ElfHonestly, I think the LotR Trilogy was the best book-to-film adaptation we will ever get. Was everything that was in the books in the films? No and honestly it shouldn't be. The books take a long time to read and people's attention spans wouldn't last for a 9 hour movie (heck, people were groaning at the length of the theatrical release). I honestly believe Jackson did a great job, far better than others did with the Harry Potter adaptations.

The only way LotR could have been better is if it was made into a show, like Game of Thrones... But shows lend themselves to inaccuracies more than movies so it would be a give-and-take.

Don't get me wrong, I think Jackson did a beautiful job with LotR. I'm a sucker for the books though so I doubt any director could make a movie that I thought was better than the book version.

Quote from: Nomadic

Quote from: Nomadic

Quote from: Elemental_ElfHonestly, I think the LotR Trilogy was the best book-to-film adaptation we will ever get. Was everything that was in the books in the films? No and honestly it shouldn't be. The books take a long time to read and people's attention spans wouldn't last for a 9 hour movie (heck, people were groaning at the length of the theatrical release). I honestly believe Jackson did a great job, far better than others did with the Harry Potter adaptations.

The only way LotR could have been better is if it was made into a show, like Game of Thrones... But shows lend themselves to inaccuracies more than movies so it would be a give-and-take.

The Books are always better. :)

Quote from: Elemental_ElfThe Books are always better. :)

I'm probably going to get a lot of flak for this...but I'm not a huge fan of the LOTR books. They're worth reading once and by no means bad...but I didn't and don't have any desire to re-read them. On the other hand, I've watched the movies a few dozen times each.

I'm with Xathan.

Also: Eragon.

Although what "better" means in the context of the writing of Christopher Paolini...

Quote from: Xathan Of Many Worlds

Quote from: Elemental_ElfThe Books are always better. :)

I'm probably going to get a lot of flak for this...but I'm not a huge fan of the LOTR books. They're worth reading once and by no means bad...but I didn't and don't have any desire to re-read them. On the other hand, I've watched the movies a few dozen times each.

I think the way Tolkein writes to a modern reader is often seen as too slow and too descriptive. Modern readers don't need as much description because we have vicariously encountered far more than readers in Tolkein's time ever imagined (through TV, film and the internet). Modern readers want faster information flow because that's how we live our lives - fast isn't fast enough. Obviously, your reasoning could be different but I've found most people who enjoy but do not love the books with the same vigor that they love the movies with is often due to the above.

Plus, let's all be honest here, Film is far more easily consumable than a book. Books take a long time to read, Films only take 3 and a half hours.

Quote from: Renaissance AngelI'm with Xathan.

Also: Eragon.

Although what "better" means in the context of the writing of Christopher Paolini...

Eragon is one of my favorite movies. I laugh so hard every time I watch it!

Quote from: Elemental_ElfI think the way Tolkein writes to a modern reader is often seen as too slow and too descriptive. Modern readers don't need as much description because we have vicariously encountered far more than readers in Tolkein's time ever imagined (through TV, film and the internet). Modern readers want faster information flow because that's how we live our lives - fast isn't fast enough. Obviously, your reasoning could be different but I've found most people who enjoy but do not love the books with the same vigor that they love the movies with is often due to the above.

Plus, let's all be honest here, Film is far more easily consumable than a book. Books take a long time to read, Films only take 3 and a half hours.

Which may be true in the general case, but I read 3-4 books a month at minimum and read the entire Wheel of Time series and loved it (and you want to talk about overly descriptive books...) :P It's not about speed, it's about pacing and making sure you describe the right things. I love detail, it makes a book come alive...but Tolkien felt very dry to me. And it was one of the first fantasy stories I read, so it's not that I was already steeped in the tropes - only things I read fantasy wise prior to LOTR were Voyage of the Dawn Treader and The Hobbit.

So what he's saying is he likes Tolkien, but he doesn't like Tolkien.

Quote from: an ElfEragon is one of my favorite movies. I laugh so hard every time I watch it!

Beats the hell out of the D&D movie.

I didn't laugh at that one.

I cried...

Quote from: An Angel

Quote from: an ElfEragon is one of my favorite movies. I laugh so hard every time I watch it!

I think we all cried. That movie was terrible.

The latest D&D movie, featuring a Black Dragon, was actually pretty good, if a bit low budget-y.

Quote from: Elemental_Elf

Quote from: An Angel

Quote from: an ElfEragon is one of my favorite movies. I laugh so hard every time I watch it!

I think we all cried. That movie was terrible.

The latest D&D movie, featuring a Black Dragon, was actually pretty good, if a bit low budget-y.

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/51/153416515_b87744be15.jpg)

Its hard to believe Jeremy Irons was in that movie (actually, he was Obi-Wan in Eragon... So maybe he has a thing for piss poor fantasy).

I think he just wants to show off how he still looks and sounds awesome regardless of how bad the movie is. :P

Quote from: Renaissance AngelI'm taking the piss of course. Peter Jackson loves the Tolkien mythos too much to mess with it like that.

Really?  I seem to remember a certain Scouring that Tolkien considered, 'an essential part of the plot, foreseen from the outset', as Tolkien would say in his Foreward to LOTR, that was "messed with".

Please don't misunderstand, in general, I was amazed at what a great job Jackson did in visualizing and getting the feel right.  I also had no other problem with other cuts or additions (Elves in Helm's Deep?  OK, I can roll with that...) because though they were changes, they did not alter the fundamentals of what Tolkein was trying to get across in the story.

But while I like the first 2 movies, the third really came across as a direct affront to Tolkien's intent, and something of an in insult to his memory.

I'm glad the scouring wasn't in it.

Authorial intent is not always the be-all-end-all of storytelling, and I think the film was better without it.

Quote from: Renaissance AngelI'm glad the scouring wasn't in it.

Authorial intent is not always the be-all-end-all of storytelling, and I think the film was better without it.

Authorial intent and the importance of it has much to do with the author in question.  I tend to hold the author in question in extraordinary esteem.

The movie, especially book 3 told a very different story due the ommision of what was perceived by the author as worthy of mention in his own introduction, and one of the few things so mentioned.
I consider it a dumbing down of the story; removing the actual necessary coming full-circle.  I agree with you that it made the film easier to grasp and follow for a certain, very large demographic of paying moviegoers.  After all, there were bills to pay.

I disagree that the film was 'better' for it; I would concede that perhaps dumbing it down made it more palatable to a large part of the paying market.

Quote from: Renaissance AngelI'm glad the scouring wasn't in it.

Authorial intent is not always the be-all-end-all of storytelling, and I think the film was better without it.

I have to agree. The point of a movie adaption is to eliminate all of the frills and showcase the core of the book(s). The scourging isn't necessary to the story main plot. It is merely an event that extrapolates and enriches the back story of the world.

Quote from: Elemental_Elf

Quote from: Renaissance AngelI'm glad the scouring wasn't in it.

Authorial intent is not always the be-all-end-all of storytelling, and I think the film was better without it.

I have to agree. The point of a movie adaption is to eliminate all of the frills and showcase the core of the book(s). The scourging isn't necessary to the story main plot. It is merely an event that extrapolates and enriches the back story of the world.

The 'scourging' (sic) isn't necessary to the story main plot?
"It (the Scoring of the Shire) is an essential part of the plot, foreseen from the outset,..." (J.R.R. Tolkien, from the LotR forward).  I tend to take the word of the author here, EElf.  According to the main who wrote it, it is necessary to the main plot.  I tend to think he knew what he was doing.
Doesn't mean everyone has to agree.  

Quote from: LordVreeg

Quote from: Elemental_Elf

Quote from: Renaissance AngelI'm glad the scouring wasn't in it.

Authorial intent is not always the be-all-end-all of storytelling, and I think the film was better without it.

I have to agree. The point of a movie adaption is to eliminate all of the frills and showcase the core of the book(s). The scourging isn't necessary to the story main plot. It is merely an event that extrapolates and enriches the back story of the world.

The 'scourging' (sic) isn't necessary to the story main plot?
"It (the Scoring of the Shire) is an essential part of the plot, foreseen from the outset,..." (J.R.R. Tolkien, from the LotR forward).  I tend to take the word of the author here, EElf.  According to the main who wrote it, it is necessary to the main plot.  I tend to think he knew what he was doing.
Doesn't mean everyone has to agree.  

I think what EE was trying to say is that removing it doesn't cause the story to fall to pieces. It's built onto the core story and is by no means the lynchpin holding the story together. Having said this I was rather miffed when Jackson left it out after hinting at it in the first movie with Galadriel's mirror. That was a big part of the winding down of the fellowship and I very much enjoyed it

well, if that was what he meant, then I cannot disagree.  I do consider it essential to getting the full impact and completing the cycle (and Tolkien was huge on connecting the dots)...but removing it did not make it worthless or nonsensical, i agree.

QuoteThe movie, especially book 3 told a very different story due the ommision of what was perceived by the author as worthy of mention in his own introduction, and one of the few things so mentioned.
I consider it a dumbing down of the story; removing the actual necessary coming full-circle. I agree with you that it made the film easier to grasp and follow for a certain, very large demographic of paying moviegoers. After all, there were bills to pay.

film[/b], a piece of cinematic art, as opposed to merely an audiobook of the Lord of the Rings with pictures?

It's certainly possible that Peter Jackson sat in his studio and thought to himself "cutting the Scouring of the Shire will appeal to dumber, more tasteless moviegoers, of which there are many."  Perhaps he did it unconsciously.  But it's also possible (and much more likely, if the man has any professional integrity at all) that he decided it simply wasn't working as a part of the piece of art he was trying to make.  That's not an insult to Tolkien or his fans, and it's not "dumbing down," even if said fans happen to disagree with his artistic judgment.

Quote from: Polycarp

QuoteThe movie, especially book 3 told a very different story due the ommision of what was perceived by the author as worthy of mention in his own introduction, and one of the few things so mentioned.
I consider it a dumbing down of the story; removing the actual necessary coming full-circle. I agree with you that it made the film easier to grasp and follow for a certain, very large demographic of paying moviegoers. After all, there were bills to pay.

film[/b], a piece of cinematic art, as opposed to merely an audiobook of the Lord of the Rings with pictures?

It's certainly possible that Peter Jackson sat in his studio and thought to himself "cutting the Scouring of the Shire will appeal to dumber, more tasteless moviegoers, of which there are many."  Perhaps he did it unconsciously.  But it's also possible (and much more likely, if the man has any professional integrity at all) that he decided it simply wasn't working as a part of the piece of art he was trying to make.  That's not an insult to Tolkien or his fans, and it's not "dumbing down," even if said fans happen to disagree with his artistic judgment.

I was not aware that the term 'plot' had a different meaning in a book than in a movie.  I know that they are different mediums and have many different foci; but  I seem to remember plotting being the one place that they converged.
Hmm, let's look it up in Merriam-Websters...
": the plan or main story (as of a movie or literary work)"
well, 'Plot' does not have a differfent meaning in movies than in books.

Well, I don't want to say you are wrong, but a book or a movie still tell a story.  All and sundry are welcome to disagree, but you did not hear me complaining about the removal of Bombadil, much though I love that part, or the inclusion of the elves in Helm's Deep..becasue they are not essential to the plot, in inclusion or removal.  The central story of the Hobbit's growth and change, of the passing of an age and the baggage involved, and the growth and coming of age and prominence of the hobbits, is not changed by them and others.
PC, I disagree.  You can substitute 'simplification' for 'dumbing down', and 'standing as a piece of art in it's own right' for 'mass-market appeal', but the effect is the same in my eyes.  

This debate was inevitable... :P

Quote from: Renaissance AngelThis debate was inevitable... :P

see, now I am in accord with you...it was...

On the plus side:

Martin Freeman as Bilbo = Definite Win.

Leonard Nimoy: Smaug (rumored)

If this proves to be true I won't know whether to laugh or salute Jackson.

He has a good voice, I support the decision.

Quote from:  Definite Win.[/quoteMorgan[/i] Freeman.

Quote from: Polycarp

Quote from:  Definite Win.[/quoteMorgan[/i] Freeman.

Same here.


Also, Nimoy as Smaug? That sounds like the perfect foe for Bilbo (Bilbo!), Bilbo Baggins, the bravest little hobbit of them all!

I would have liked to see Tim Curry as Smaug.

Quote from: SteerpikeI would have liked to see Tim Curry as Smaug.

Never the wrong choice.

"Why don't you stay for the night?"
"Or maybe..a bite?" (Show teeth)
"I could show you my favorite...Obsession...."
-crowd line, 'GOLD!!'

Gary Busey as smog. With Gary Busey teeth.

Here's how the casting list is looking so far: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0903624/fullcredits

Holy heck, Dominic Keating  is in the film!

That's awesome!

A few on-the-set pics have been officially published: http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20504849,00.html#20980349

Apparently the woman that played Kate on Lost is going to be in the movie. At least according to the mc chris Facebook page. I don't know if anyone here cares about that. I don't know if I care about that, either.

I rather enjoyed most of the first season of Lost. After that I think it got mostly silly and, at times, it was painfully obvious that the writers were just making crap up as they went along.

Quote from: Ninja D!I rather enjoyed most of the first season of Lost. After that I think it got mostly silly and, at times, it was painfully obvious that the writers were just making crap up as they went along.

[spoiler=Lost the RPG](http://www.lostrofl.com/media/blogs/lostrofl/2009spring/pvp20070411.gif)[/spoiler]

Quote from: Ninja D!Apparently the woman that played Kate on Lost is going to be in the movie. At least according to the mc chris Facebook page. I don't know if anyone here cares about that. I don't know if I care about that, either.

So many better actresses out there...

Quote from: Ninja D!I rather enjoyed most of the first season of Lost. After that I think it got mostly silly and, at times, it was painfully obvious that the writers were just making crap up as they went along.

Disagree completely with the exception of season 4 (though even that season was enjoyable).

I only made it to the early - mid part of, I think, season 4. That was mostly because of my girlfriend, too.

Quote from: Ninja D!I only made it to the early - mid part of, I think, season 4. That was mostly because of my girlfriend, too.

The problem with season 4 is that [spoiler]None of it matters for season 5. You can remove the entire season and loose only a bit of the background story for the island.[/spoiler]

Well, [spoiler]I'm not surprised. They were clearly making it up as they went.[/spoiler]

Quote from: Ninja D!Well, [spoiler]I'm not surprised. They were clearly making it up as they went.[/spoiler]

Oops, I got my season mixed up. Season 5 was the weird one that [spoiler]had little to do with season 6. [/spoiler]

Benedict Cumberbatch, Martin Freeman... If Steven Moffat was involved in any way, it'd become a buddy detective flick in no time.

And we have our first official trailer!

http://youtu.be/eM--4UklaL4