Chindie

'Scans' of the article - a lot of reveals 1 city, with surrounding countryside. Bigger than GTA4, RDR and San Andreas combined, when you count interior and exterior space...

Yes, Pelennor Fields is the major battle in the whole book... I am familiar with it . It's the only battle where Tolkein puts any effort into in depth description - even Helms Deep gets pretty short shrift IIRC - because of it's importance to the story, and it's bringing together of so many moments that had been building. I can forgive what you dislike about it. The Witch-king encounter was cut in the theatrical release for length and pacing IIRC - and even in the extended editions whilst it is a good scene (one of my favourites in the whole trilogy actually) I recall it being different to the book, but it worked. Eomer had a massively reduced role thanks to the adaptation and so trimming some of his scenes was inevitable. They do make reference to his grief at finding Eowyn, he finds her on the battlefield and breaks down, although IIRC they do that when the battle is more or less done so he doesn't do his beserker thing. The Deadmen are used as a deus ex machina to bring the battle to a swift end, IIRC Jackson didn't actually like that entire part of the book and only put them in to prevent disappointment, so he expanded their role from effectively being boatjackers into a major part of the battle. I can see why you'd do it - Tolken makes a big deal out of them but they actually do very little, and by adding them in it allowed him to trim some complexity (Aragorn leading a small company of men at that point, Gondor's reserves, really, using the boats and coming to the rescue, etc) and also get the battle done with, it runs long anyway and that without Jackson adding that much of the daft stuff, like Legolas trunk surfing. I actually don't like the addition myself but I let him off because I can ee why he did it, he made a call in favour of fan service and used it to his advantage in making the film more manageable. Ultimately it doesn't actually affect the battle all that much, the major plays still happen, the events largely go down as they needed to. It's not a big deal, and believe I love the books too.

The Crow Road is in my top 10 ever I think, a brilliant, simple book. Read at it at the right age in fairness, 20, and the right 'place' in life - no idea what to do with myself, being on the verge (or succeeding) in **** everything up, and single. But it is a great read and a permanent favourite I think. Must be a favourite of Banks himself too because he keeps copying it

3 protagonists is a possibly very smart move for Rockstar take for the benefit of the narrative.

He's definitely associated it with LOTR, there's clear links in the art design even from just the stuff we've seen already (as opposed to what del Toro was going to do, which was do 1 film in his unmistakable style and the second film as a bridge between his and Jackson's styles), and it's clearly intended to be a LOTR prequel (which in fairness the book is, just with a very different tone). From the trailers and talk released so far however, there is a tonal shift - there's a clear shift towards something a little more light hearted and whimsical. The last trailer ended on a slapstick gag for instance and it's clear they are intending to play up the dwarves as mischievous, often comedic characters. The thing is (and Roger Ebert argues this well) that Jackson took a book that was about a journey, with LOTR, and made a big budget blockbuster action movie trilogy. The book is about a party travelling on a great adventure, burdened with great purpose and seeing fantastic sights. Tolkein describes battles in that book, from what I remember, the way a particularly flowery journalist might, great moments in the War of the Ring are over in just a few pages, the extravagant details are rarely given except in hugely important moments like major deaths. A film that captured the tone of the book would have almost been a bit art house, very different and destined not to make a penny. Jackson chose to make an action series and did it fairly well. It's been a while since I read the books (I used to read them annually but haven't in some time) but I think by and large, Jackson stuck to them fairly rigidly as far as events and general plotting went, cutting some bits (Ghan buri Ghan and the pygmies most notably) and elaborating on the action heavily which I think is pretty forgiveable even for a true lover of the books - sure I find some of it daft (Pelennor Fields is the best example, Legolas on the mumakil, the encounter between Gandalf and the Witch-King which was chopped from the theatrical release, etc etc) but I can forgive him extrapolating out and adding action into the bits of the story Tolkein himself is more interested in telling the story of more than describing. I don't remember much being straight up made up that are massively important to the story or were examples of fudging for adaptation. They needed to be long films regardless, and I think the Hobbit, despite being a shorter work, needs length. A lot happens in the Hobbit and again, it's a huge journey and theres a load of characters to introduce and flesh out. Sadly for an action film adaptation a lot of what happens in the Hobbit early doors (arguably over half of it, really) are not particularly big action moments and again he's definitely extrapolating them (the trolls sequence is definitely being made into a full action sequence, Mirkwood is being blown into a massive action sequence when in the book, IIRC, it's more a mildly perilous encounter with some wolves and spiders...). It could have been made into a (decent length, over 3 hours) single film, but given that they are adding in bits from Tolkein's 'legendarium' exploring, for instance, what Gandalf is upto when he vanishes throughout the Hobbit, 2 films is understandable. There are also fairly obvious and satisfying places you can cut it for a 2 film series. 3 is certainly pushing it, I don't see where you can cut it into 3 without it feeling very clearly chopped up, and I worry that the second and possibly the third film would be curious movies because of it. The second could potentially be a very bizarre film, because it starts, at the absolute earliest, with Bilbo having just found the Ring and from what I remember of the book it's, bar a small dalliance in Laketown, pretty much all Smaug and the Lonely Mountain then until the battle at the end which IIRC Bilbo plays an absolutely tiny part in. You'd have to end the third there or there abouts with Bilbo's return journey so what on earth do you do with the second film?! IIRC theres not even that much going on at that time with Gandalf, though my Tolkein canon isn't strong outside of the LOTR and the Hobbit.

I'd bet it'll be between 7.5 and 9 hours theatrically, across the 3, and upto 11 when extended editions hit home media. The first film is clocking 2hrs 40 atm without it being finished. The next one, depending where he's cut it and how indulgent he's been, should be as long if not longer, and then he's got the third film and whatever appendices he's filming... A lot of the length will depend on how he's chopped up the book. The first half of the Hobbit needs a fair amount of playing things over the top to make it a interesting action y film, as most of what happens early on are fairly small perilous moments with no great action. Tbh, i still don't believe, even with additions, the book lends itself to making 3 satisfying films.

The Yankee makes it a slightly less stupid bet but regardless, a mad bet. ...lucky bastard.

If that isn't a piss take, the author could do well to use his right to carry a firearm, place it in his mouth and pull the trigger till it goes click. It'd save himself, and the world, a considerable amount of trouble. The idea that the Democrats are somehow communist is so moronic I'm not sure you could even begin to reason with them.

And the Game Informer article should go out this evening, so expect a complete info blowout later on. The cover should be out by 5pm.

I'm not the biggest/smartest gambler, but even I know that that is a daft bet unless you've got £11 you desperately want to lose. I was looking at an accumulator a few years ago with the spare few pence in my account on correct scores for the entire Saturday fixture list in the Prem, and managed to get odds that put a return somewhere in the region of the Greek national debt, and I couldn't bring myself to waste the 13p, let alone £11 on a yankee.

Simply delaying the inevitable unfortunately. Resistance is futile, they will default and the delay right now is more to allow the rest of the continent to brace themselves rather than actually solve anything. That can can't be kicked down the road much longer, no matter how much they might hope that they'll kick it into the long grass and lose it. As for the rioting, well, the way things are going there won't be much to burn soon, beyond the poor.

I quite like the intimation that theres no football clubs in Ireland from that little back and forth Speaking of footballing blackholes, I went to Dudley earlier (Merry Hell really). **** hell, it gets worse. And I was looking for a suit which made it into even worse a trip with the whole 'men hate buying clothes thing'.

The Wider Paedophile Debate is a great student band name.

Another brief AC3 gripe. You know in Brotherhood they added the... er... Brotherhood mechanic? And whilst it wasn't really that special it was kinda fun to just have a crew of assassins built up and send them off round the world and recruiting them was pretty much as hard as 'Hey, I saved you from those guys, you should be an assassin!'? They've changed it. The system is still there but is absolutely pointless and chopped back. Which is lucky really becaue I have absolutely no **** idea how to recruit more assassins. I've done little missions which suggested they let you recruit people but... er... they didn't. I've been left Liberation missions which I think are to do with it but the Liberation missions um... appear not to have any mission at their location... And I swear the game hasn't told me how to recruit anyone. It's given me one guy in the course of the storyline but at the moment I can't even use him at all, and with just one guy you can't do any of the 'sending him off round the continent to do stuff'.

If the Tea Party continues to exert influence and grow, I wouldn't be surprised if it happened, as they're crazy. And the more realistic aspects of the Republican party know they have to start considering going Left to regain power as the US changes. That will cause tension in the GOP and I would not be surprised to see it break - the Tea Party will not like a move Left, and the more moderate Republicans will know the Tea Party is a ready made noose for them. It won't happen any time soon but pressure will mount in coming elections as the white heartland of the GOP wanes. Texas could feasibly go Democratic in the next generation - that's crazy.

Aye theres increasing talk of the Republican Party perhaps by necessity splitting apart as it struggles to balance principle with the need to appeal to demographics it simply does not currently do. It would mean that the Tea Party would go it's own way and, if it stuck to it's principles, it'd never elect a President. It appeals to a demographic that is shrinking. The rest of the party will begrudgingly move towards the centre to tussle it out over the independent voters and probably gun for the Hispanic demographic severely, seeing that as an investment that would pay off in coming elections. It'll only happen when it becomes obvious that the Republican party has lost a feasible chance of winning an election, which is perhaps a generation or 2 away.

Dishonored is where I'll be heading back to once I polish of AC3. It's a compelling experience, I've only moved on as other things came up and the way I'm playing it (stealthy no kills) it requires patience and a time expenditure to play (the game in no way forces you to do that though, in the 10/12 hours I've put in) and probably arguably puts more temptation to you not to do that. On the AC3 'Brits are evil' thing. Put it like this. I think I'm around sequence 8 IIRC, of 12 sequences if the achievements are accurate, and I've not come across a sympathetic British character. All of the major villains are British or Irish, it's replacement for guards are all redcoats, and it's only sop so far to not making out that Brits are word removeds is that occasionally what I guess are supposed to be American troops (bluecoats) will attack you. There hasn't been a single 'good' Brit, they're all portrayed as stereotypes of bad (the aloof gentryman, the thug, all round upper class bastard who may be slightly unhinged 'cos he's got messy sweaty hair and mad eyes, an Irishman who has knowledge of Natives and has betrayed them, etc etc). Unless there is a twist coming, or it's going to introduce a good Brit, the only way you can argue it isn't a British people are word removeds simulator is that the villains are Templars before they are Brits and only align with British interests as it is best for Templar interests. I fully expect them to chuck in a token Yank Templar soon enough. It so far hasn't eally portrayed any Americans as bad that I can remember. It's made a couple look somewhat hypocritical or incompetent (Paul Revere's big moment in the Revolution is demoted to him being an 18th Century GPS system thanks to the game fudging you into every big moment it seems) but generally there's a tangible feeling of... pussy footing around them, putting them in scenes as window dressing almost sometimes, or as token supporting cast. On XCOM, I dearly would like to play it, but I'm really unsure if it's for me. I've got the demo but stupidly I'm almost worried to play that even for some reason.

Depends how you look at it. I'd argue no, as Obama had far far greater options to win than Mick McCarthy ever had.

Iirc at this point in time without Florida he can't feasibly win. To win without Florida he would need all the other swing states in his favour, which he can no longer do, do would require other states to swing which is not something you'd bank on. If he loses Florida all he could do would be to let the lawyers off their leashes in reality.

If he loses Florida the game is over basically.

Its a damn shame Gore Vidal won't be around this year to have a completely surreal chat with Dimbleby.

Ohio won't be called any time soon.

Entirely depends on how the vote goes in certain states. You could have a damn good idea as early as 2/3am, you may need to wait till much later (6/7am), and if trouble flares in any particularly important states it could be longer than that. This is making me nostalgic for 2008. At uni, no lectures the next day, the campus bars open all night, a politics student, getting more and more pissed, deeply offending a moronic fresher girl who decided to tell me she was 9/11 'truther' to confirm her idiocy... Those were the days.

My Iain M Banks foray continues with his first Culture book, Consider Phlebas. Its interesting reading that first book with the knowledge of the Culture from other books in the series, as the book so far has presented the Culture as seen from the outside, as a far off enemy ideologically opposed to the protagonist. After that I've got Pratchett's latest, and then I'm back on the Banks with his latest Culture book Hydrogen Sonata. And I'm growing interested in reading the A Song of Ice and Fire books despite my hefty reservations...

48fps footage was shown at Cinema Con in June and was slated as looking cheap and uncinematic. It should help with 3D as it assists with problems like blur that are associated with the usual 24fps (that also gives films their cinematic quality) that **** up 3D effects. Unfortunately basically no-one is going to see the film in 48fps, as it seems very few cinemas are able/can be bothered to upgrade their kit to show at that framerate. Jackson is basically trying to advance cinema as a bit of a vanity project I think, similarly to James Cameron (who advocates a shift to 60fps himself). On the first Hobbit film actually, Jackson confirmed the other day he's not actually finished it yet, sfx is still being finished and is currently running at 2 hrs 40. Theres already a heavy hint there'll be an extended bluray too... If the other 2 films run at a similar length, he's made the Hobbit into a 9 hour series, which is insane. The Hobbit, even with additional content, shouldn't run to 9 hours on film. Its a pretty simple and straightforward read and rattles along.