Carol the Dabbler

Hey, it's only January!

Personally, I hope they don't feel pressured into making a definite statement any time soon. They don't seem to be ready to do more Sherlock just yet, so the answer at this point would probably be "no," and they might be inclined to believe it. Whereas if they can air out for a while longer, do a variety of other things, I suspect they'll eventually get back into a Sherlock mood, perhaps because an irresistible plot idea occurs to them. It might be a while yet, though. Haven't they always talked about the appeal of doing more episodes when Cumberbatch and Freeman are older, more the age of traditional Holmes and Watson portrayers? Let's see: Rathbone was between 47 and 54, ... and Bruce was between 44 and 51. Brett was between 51 and 61, ... Burke was about 50, ... and Hardwicke was between 53 and 62. So, average Holmes age is 53 and average Watson age is 52; both roles were played until an average age of 56 or 57. Cumberbatch is currently 43 and Freeman is currently 48. Maybe in five or ten years?

Hobbits are physically the smallest people in Middle Earth, they're homebodies, and before Frodo and Sam saved the world, the other races seemed to pay little attention to them (which apparently suited the hobbits just fine). I don't think that makes them less important (which is why I put the word "important" in quotes), but the other folks in Middle Earth seem to consider the elves and the various tribes of humans to be far more important from a political point of view. That's what I meant. Good point. I don't recall the figures (if any exact ones were given), but Smeagol and his kin might be from just about the right era. I don't think he was ever said to have been a hobbit as such, but similar. It'd be cool if they could get Andy Serkis (I loved his live-action portrayal of Smeagol), but I ain't holding my breath for that. I'm pretty sure you're right -- OK, here's what Tolkien Gateway has: The Bree-land area was settled in the Second Age by Men from Dunland. [....] Around T.A. 1300 Bree, as well as Staddle, saw the arrival of the Hobbits who were fleeing from Angmar. In T.A. 1601 a large population of Hobbits left Bree and went west beyond Baranduin and founded a new country within Arthedain, The Shire.[3] . I'm pretty sure that the reason Gandalf "forgot" their names in the first Hobbit movie is that Jackson didn't have the rights to whatever book they're from. So if the article you quoted on Friday has it straight, then the new series won't be able to elaborate either: Amazon's rights to Tolkien's work are the same rights that producer Saul Zaentz bought in the 1970s, leading both to Ralph Bakshi's animated Lord Of the Rings and eventually to Peter Jackson's films. These rights only include material from The Lord Of The Rings and The Hobbit. So anything that's mentioned in those books (including Lord Of the Rings' lengthy appendices) is fair game.... Too bad, but it's looking like the new series will be essentially information from the Appendices plus some historical bits and pieces from The Hobbit and LotR plus stuff that's been made up specifically for the show.

Quite true -- though I'm still expecting more Sherlock eventually, meaning whenever Moftiss is bit by the bug again. As I've said before, I'm pretty sure that the "Cumberbatch and Freeman are too busy" thing is mostly an excuse for Moftiss's current enthusiasm for something else and/or current lack of any good story ideas. When/if Moftiss is keen on doing more Sherlock, I strongly suspect that Hartswood will immediately contact the two leads, find out when they're next available at the same time, and sign them up.

I seriously doubt that there will be any hobbits in the show. They'll probably focus on more "important" cultures, as I understand Tolkien did in the Silmarillion (not that the show will be based on that book).

Yeah, I'm wondering the same thing.

Well, yes and no. There might be characters who are genetically hobbits, but in the Second Age they could not be Shire hobbits -- more like proto-hobbits, by which I mean their culture would be far different. Whereas Tolkien based his late-Third-Age hobbit culture on rural England circa 1900, their Second-Age counterparts would presumably be more like Anglo-Saxons.

What I've heard so far adds up to no hobbits -- so I won't be going out of my way to see it.

Thanks, Martina. Yes, hopefully he can.

Just checking to be sure: You're having the same problem (as shown in your prior screen cap) with quote boxes on your mobile devices? That is, the quote box shows up plain white with no visible text inside; highlighting changes the background color inside the box but doesn't reveal any text?

If you do happen to think of anything, please let me know. Meanwhile I'll bring this to Tim's attention.

Considering that you're having the same problem on three different devices, we need to consider the liveware factor: Is there anything unusual that you routinely do on your three mobile devices? (Strictly as an example of "doing something unusual," I recently discovered that zooming my display larger or smaller has some odd side effects on the forum software.)

What browser does that use?

Weird. Truly weird! What sort of phone do you have?

I assume you know how it's supposed to work -- press on one of the words you want to highlight (good luck finding it!!!) until it grows handles, then drag on a handle to enlarge the area. Did that use to work on your pad and/or phone?