Hobbit delayed by a year?

[Lalwendë]

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...ow/3861879.cms

Credit Crunch?? Waiting till the 3D technology is up to scratch (if the rumours are correct)? PJ et al too busy on other stuff? Creative differences??

[davem]

Actually, I posted that - but as its not 'controversial' I'll leave it under Lal's name & go & hassle her about not logging out when she uses my computer!!!!

[Morthoron]

One wonders about the whole Smeagol/Gollum parallel in these Davem/Lalwende posts. Yes, we wonders, precious.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...ow/3861879.cms

Credit Crunch?? Waiting till the 3D technology is up to scratch (if the rumours are correct)? PJ et al too busy on other stuff? Creative differences??

Or finally realising that they are doing the thing back to front and are hog-tied by the parameters of the LOTR films and having to get actors to play younger or unchanged from how they were over a decade ago? Or that however much they think they write better than Tolkien that it isn't going to be so easy to cobble together a second film especially given the limitations already mentioned ?
As the Irish say when giving directions "If I were going there, I wouldn't start from here" .

Was that lawsuit finally settled?

[Naz]

Wooooah. I mean... woah.


....more time to get in on it; kekeke. (shifty eyes)

But seriously, that's... quite a delay. I know this may sound blasphemous, but one wonders if all the issues are really well worth the agitation & postponement. :\

[Tuor in Gondolin]

Given PJs "liberties", especially with TTT and ROTK,
I wouldn't be too disappointed if TH results like the
FOTR movie, and the bridge movie isn't quite as bad
as the second and third movies with their
"liberal" interpretations/additions.

[Beregond]

Nay, folks, good or ill, tis not true.

TheOneRing.net has it on good authority (from the director himself) that there is no delay. This rumour is a rumour and naught else.

[Mister Underhill]

This is intriguing news indeed. I saw the item late last night and have been waiting for it to break in the trades all day. So far it hasn't, which makes me wonder how accurate it is. Then again, we're on the cusp of the holidays, so it could be they're just running with skeleton crews at the trades at this point.

I would be surprised if the delay were the result of "creative differences". Once a movie starts rolling down the tracks, there aren't many people involved with it who are not expendable and can't be replaced within a few days. Still, I do note with interest that I keep seeing GDT's name pop up in association with new projects. One is even mentioned in today's trades, a project that he will script with Chris McQuarrie for Tom Cruise to star in. If memory serves, another one that's he supposed to be involved with is a trilogy of vampire novels. The guy must be booked solid through about 2020.

I hadn't heard anything about 3D technology, but that story might have some merit. James Cameron is, I think, very close to starting on a new big-budget sci-fi film that is supposed to use cutting edge 3D tech that he's no doubt developing in-house. I guess it's possible that they'd wait for it, but if so it's probably only one factor. I'd speculate that the other would be a feeling that the script isn't ready to get into production and hit the release window they're looking at, so better to push it and make sure that everyone's happy with it.

It'll be interesting to watch this story develop.

[Beregond]

Sorry, if I had posted a couple minutes earlier I could have saved you the speculation.

[Andsigil]

What about casting? They have to have all of the roles decided by now. I just don't understand all of the secrecy about who is going to portray whom.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Andsigil

What about casting? They have to have all of the roles decided by now. I just don't understand all of the secrecy about who is going to portray whom.

Well, because Warner Brothers is now in charge, there are some actors that are still contractually tied to other studios until the end of 2008; therefore, the announcements of Hobbit appearances by Jim Carrey, Mike Meyers, Will Smith and Lindsey Lohan will have to wait until the new year.

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by Beregond

Sorry, if I had posted a couple minutes earlier I could have saved you the speculation.

Heh -- that's what I get for not refreshing before I post.

[Tuor in Gondolin]

At TheOneRing.net they don't seem to agree with this rumor.

Rumors Abound - Hobbit Delayed until 2012? FALSE
December 19th, 2008

Rumors are hitting the web today that the release of The Hobbit will not be until 2012. We are trying to independently confirm/deny this rumor so look for an update shortly! Thanks to the Ringers who are sending in the links to various news stories on the topic.
UPDATE

We have received confirmation from the source of all sources, GDT himself stating that this rumor is NOT TRUE. Rest easy folks, it’s not happening.

[davem]

Disney pulls out the Narnia franchise

http://www.reuters.com/article/enter...4BN0M520081224

Further challenging "Treader" may be a waning of the pricey children's fantasy genre. When the "Harry Potter" series topped the book charts and then filled movie theaters, studios began snapping up fantasy manuscripts as quickly as they could. When "The Lord of the Rings" showed it was possible for adults to enjoy the fare as well -- and produced the box-office results to prove it -- Hollywood's fascination with the genre intensified.

But no other fantasy adventure films have shown that kind of box office punch. Earlier this year, Warners and New Line hoped they were launching a franchise with "The Golden Compass," but the adaptation of the Philip Pullman trilogy tanked domestically. The film grossed just $70 million domestically and the co-production partners declined to go forward with a second installment despite the fact the film did take in more than $300 million overseas.

....and for that very reason I haven't ruled out the possibility that TH may be delayed - whatever TORn or GDT say - PJ isn't directing, people have seen this kind of thing in other movies - dragons, epic battles, etc - & 'children's fantasy fims' are not popular. Which last point brings us back to the old question - how much will they need to alter the story in order to win over an adult audience? No guarantee that TH won't follow Prince Caspian - bigger budget, smaller return.

[Morthoron]

Delaying The Hobbit film until 2012 makes perfect sense. I believe either the Aztec or Mayan world calendar indicates that 2012 is the end of the world; therefore, between the Aztec calendar and the Mexican Del Toro, we have a perfect storm in an apocalyptic sense.

Just think, you can have an oblivion party right at the theater:

"It's the end of the world as we know it,
But the Hobbit's fine..."

[Sauron the White]

Is it just coincidence that those who seem to take the most pleasure in hoping for a delay of the next Middle-earth films are also those who did not like the last three?

just asking....

there is are too much money to be made here for these films not to come to pass.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

there is are too much money to be made here for these films not to come to pass.

That's probably what Disney said when they got the option of co-producing the Narnia movies. First they were going to do all seven books, then it became a trilogy (LWW, PC & Dawn Treader), now they've bailed - because of diminishing returns. Don't assume there's money to be made in a Hobbit movie. You might want to check out the link in my post on the Compass & LotR comparison thread http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpos...&postcount=220

As far as successful franchises go, I suspect everyone 'in the know' would have included Narnia after the performance of LWW, alongside LotR....

EDIT Let's face it - if TH was a stand alone work, without the LotR connection, no studio would touch it at the moment - a movie about a midget who gets dragged off by a wizard & thirteen Dwarves & not a single female character in the whole story. And I suspect that without a major re-write & the introduction of some familiar faces it won't do the business. It's not been picked up for what it is in its own right, but purely as a way of getting LotR movie fans back into the cinemas - & most of them have a very clear about the kind of movie they want to see - & that's not the story Tolkien wrote...

[Nogrod]

I think they would love to do the Hobbit-movie just because of the money it would produce them. It's just that in this "post credit-crunch" -world no one is willing to invest anything on anything that doesn't materialise itself in a day or two. Let's forget the quartal economy: the truth of the financial markets is day by day now. So nothing that takes time gets invested in.

And that to be sure is the problem of our modern capitalism. The quartal economy was a bad thing but this Day-to-Day economy is even worse. So what happens to any project where you can't cash yourself out within a day? So if it was that the oil-firms were reluctant to invest in new refineries a year ago now the film companies are afraid to invest in movies. Both make weekly/quartal losses for future gains but in this climate no one wishes to take the risk as the investers are nervous for any signs of spending instead of gaining immediately...

[Tuor in Gondolin]

I'm rather curious why Disney turned down Narnia movies, since by the
records below it seems that the movie more then covered production costs
U.S. domestically and more then doubled expenses (including
worldwide) with PC. And this doesn't seem to include other revenue
sources (books, dvds, cable tv rights, etc.). Why wouldn't further films
also be good revenue sources?

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian - Box Office Data, Movie ...Total US Gross, $141,621,490. International Gross, $277,868,796. Worldwide Gross, $419,490,286
===================================

The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe
Domestic: $291,710,957 39.2%
Foreign: $453,300,315 60.8%
Worldwide: $745,011,272
===================================

[Mister Underhill]

Hey Tuor. The reason is that comparing raw B.O. numbers vs. productions costs leaves out a lot of variables. For instance, take that $419M B.O. and cut it nearly in half to account for the split between the studios and exhibitors and foreign distribution arms. Also deduct the money paid out to gross profit participants.

Then add to the ~$200M in production costs a figure that could very well exceed $100M worldwide in marketing costs (though some of that may be shared by foreign distribution partners). Also add in the expense of things like striking several thousand prints for exhibition in theaters, shipping those prints around the world, and other advertising like posters and whatnot...

You can see why some of these tentpole pictures become a gamble that you'll get close enough to breaking even from box office to make all the other stuff like DVD sales, cable and network licensing, rentals, etc. worth the investment over the long haul.

With expenses creeping up and box office heading steeply south, it's not that big of a surprise that Disney opted out.

[davem]

All of which is why a 'faithful' (or anything even close to it) adaptation of The Hobbit is out of the question at this time. Putting the story as it is on screen would be to guarantee a bomb - even Tolkien disliked the 'twee' nature of the early part of the story - hence his (failed) attempt in 1960 to rewrite it 'in the style' of LotR.

What I've found most interesting over the last few years as regards the TH movie is how few people actually want to see it - to see Tolkien's story on screen that is. Since it was first discussed by movie fans the focus has always seemed to be on how characters like Aragorn, Arwen & Legolas could be included (or at the least 'Orlando Bloom could play Thranduil, & John Rhys Davies Thorin' etc) how the White Council's assault on Dol Guldur could be integrated into the storyline, etc. Once it was announced that the first movie would be a straight adaptation of the book the focus seemed to shift entirely to the second movie - which could include all those things. In fact, it seems like many movie fans are looking forward more to the second movie than to the first.

I'm sure Warners is looking very carefully at what the fans want to see - & what the fans want to see is all the old gang back 'hunting some Orc'. What they don't want to see is a story set sort of in the same world, but with, in the main, different (entirely male) characters.

For all the studios profit is the bottom line, particularly at the moment, & they are going to look very carefully at what kind of Hobbit movie is going to bring in the biggest returns. I don't think that a 'faithful' adaptation of TH would bring in as much as the second movie that's being proposed (which will use many of the LotR characters/settings). The question is will Warners decide to put that movie at risk by putting out a faithful version of TH first?

http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hi...n-treader.aspx
http://www.actressarchives.com/news.php?id=13929

Disney’s decision is expected to severely effect, if not prevent, production on the franchise’s third installment, “The Voyage of the Dawn Treader,” which was scheduled to begin shooting in early 2009. Walden was previously reported to have scaled down “Treader’s” budget from $200 million to somewhere between 100 and $150 million.

So a cut in budget by up to half - what by shooting the exteriors on a back lot & the interiors on blue screen, with the cast doubling up roles? I suspect that audience expectations are for something on the scale of the previous two.

[Sauron the White]

If you want "faithful" you film each page of the actual book with the camera focused tightly on the text and switch pages every minute to give the time for the audience to read. Anything else changes something.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

If you want "faithful" you film each page of the actual book with the camera focused tightly on the text and switch pages every minute to give the time for the audience to read. Anything else changes something.

Its how much it changes. Let's face it, if TH had been written by Prof. ABC Bloggs it would have no hope of being made into a movie - for the reasons I've already given, plus, its a children's fantasy book & children's fantasy is box office death. The only reason its being made is because its connected to LotR. However, its for that very reason that changes are inevitable - because what the audience, & hence the studio, want is another LotR movie.

That's my reason for thinking that the proposed Hobbit sequel/LotR prequel movie, with its focus on Aragorn's hunt for Gollum & the White Council's assault on Dol Guldur is actually the one that audiences want to see, rather than an adaptation of Bilbo's journey - well, unless the White Council stuff can be added into TH itself (which is not the current plan). TH & sequel will cost a LOT of money & I'm fairly certain that Warners will make sure that the priority will be to give the audience what they want, & that faithfulness to the source will be even further down the list than it was to PJ & New Line. In other words I'd expect to see far less of Tolkien in these movies than we did in LotR.

[Andsigil]

Originally Posted by davem

Its how much it changes. Let's face it, if TH had been written by Prof. ABC Bloggs it would have no hope of being made into a movie - for the reasons I've already given, plus, its a children's fantasy book & children's fantasy is box office death. The only reason its being made is because its connected to LotR. However, its for that very reason that changes are inevitable - because what the audience, & hence the studio, want is another LotR movie.

I disagree a bit. While TH is a children's story, the studio doesn't have to make plot changes or invent scenes for the film to appeal to older audiences. The action and scary scenes, which Tolkien glossed over, give it potential to be a rather good PG or PG-13 film. Just imagine the lair of Azog, or Beorn's rampage in the Battle of Five Armies, or the spiders of Mirkwood recreated a la Peter Jackson and WETA.

I, for one, look forward to seeing the scene with the three cockney trolls.

[Sauron the White]

Once you accept the fact that one medium - a film - is not another medium - a book - its all an individual judgment that means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Will the public embrace it through the purchasing of tickets? That is the only question that gets a film made.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Once you accept the fact that one medium - a film - is not another medium - a book - its all an individual judgment that means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Will the public embrace it through the purchasing of tickets? That is the only question that gets a film made.

Yes, I agree - & to avoid getting into the old discussion again I think we can take that as read. My point here is that, because I agree, I reckon the studio would rather see the proposed 'sequel' to TH put out than a movie of TH. Maybe no TH movie, or maybe the 'sequel', with the White Council, Aragorn, Arwen, Legolas (Boromir & Faramir???) - which is what LotR movie fans want, apparently- first, & then the TH movie (possibly where the speculation that TH would be put back for a year comes from?? - release the one fans want first & leave the other one till later - rather than risk the franchise by putting out the less popular one first).

[skip spence]

I disagree that a faithful adaptation would do poorly in the box officee. A fairly faithful adaptation mind you: I don't expect to see the Goblins sing and dance to a show tune in the middle of a chase. The Hobbit's storyline is imo a better fit for the big screen than LotR, with plenty of scenes that would be great straight from the book. It's an adventure-story with plenty of action and thrills, but also lots of humour. Andsigil mentioned the cockney trolls who are hilarious but hopefully pretty scary too. There is also plenty of Dwarf comedy, and this time no-one can complain it isn't in the book in the first place. Can't wait for all the Bombur fat-jokes.

Sure there are drawback to a faithful adaptation. No love-affairs, few female characters, and few familiar LotR faces. Gollum and Gandalf is in of course, and they are enough I'd say, although I expect to see cameos from Legolas, Aragorn and Arwen too.

But there are drawbacks to a very loose adaptation too. The Hobbit is a famous book, and if critics perceive that the film-makers have taken too many liberties with it, the reviews might suffer as a result, and poor reviews could definitely hurt financially. But it's all a matter of perspective I suppose. I believe that LotR is regarded as a faithful adaptation of the book by the majority, an opinion not shared by most on this board.

[Tuor in Gondolin]

From Skip comment above:

few female characters

You want "thought provoking", since PJ's involved, how about
their making some of the dwarves female?

On a less scary, but pushing the envelope, how about
having Tom Bombadil and Goldberry saving them from
the trolls?

I believe that LotR is regarded as a faithful adaptation of the book by the majority, an opinion not shared by most on this board.

My view is that FOTR was pretty faithful (I even generally liked the
decision to have Zena Arwen (although poor Glorfindel missed his one
big scene ) But TTT and ROTk
In TH might they bring in Galadriel to share Elrond's scene and perhaps
have KB to some general voice over throughout the movie?

[davem]

Another take here http://www.joblo.com/cmon-hollywood-189

But the real question is what does this mean for the next Narnia film and THE HOBBIT? I think Narnia will get picked up by another studio and I think the next film will make even less than PRINCE CASPIAN. The Christian audience that Disney was banking on didn’t show up in droves like they were expecting and there’s no reason to expect they’ll show up for the sequel. As for THE HOBBIT…I have no idea. Personally, I’m not looking forward to it, but you (the fanboys/Schmoes) will ultimately decide its fate.

Interesting point that - & gives the lie to the idea that it was the boycott organised by the churches that did for Golden Compass - the 'Christian' fantasy fared no better than the 'athiestic' fantasy, & both franchises seem to have reached their end. Nope - it seems that its fantasy per se which is out of favour, whatever its philosophical underpinnings. Now, as to the TH movie & sequel, it looks like it will stand or fall by its link to the LotR movies - it will not, by the looks of things be attractive in its own right as a 'fantasy' film, because fantasy films are no longer what audiences want. Mr U has pointed up some fantasy movies in the pipeline http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpos...&postcount=215

There are still fantasy projects being developed. I can think of two big script sales within the past six months or so -- Galahad and Round Table -- and there are projects like Clash of the Titans and a Dragonheart sequel that are moving down the tracks. They're still trying to reboot Conan, and I've seen a pilot script for a cable series version of George R.R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series. I think what's feeling the squeeze are these megabudget tentpole fantasy films.

Now, they (& the Elfstones of Shannara movie, which is currently being put together) could all be brilliant, & revive the genre - or they could all be terrible, & turn off the average movie goer still further from fantasy. My sense is that Warner will try & avoid selling TH as a 'fantasy movie' & go for 'prequel to LotR' - so, they will want cameos (& probably much more) from as many LotR characters as possible. They will also want to get some female characters in there - & finally, as I said, they will want the first movie to be popular enough to get the audiences back in for the sequel.

TH is being looked at to do the same business as each of the LotR movies - as with Prince Caspian a moderate, or even a 'decent' profit will not be enough to guarantee the second movie being released - even if they complete principal photography on it the cost of completing it, adding the effects, music, all the post-production stuff, not to mention the marketing/publicity, will make them think twice if TH doesn't blow the Box Office apart. Let's face it, when the battle was begun to get TH made, when the go ahead was given & things began to get underway, fantasy was the genre to be involved in & TH was the Jewel in the Crown. Now it looks like fantasy is about as popular as the Western - & how many studios would be looking to put up $200+ million on a cowboy pic at the moment?

[Bêthberry]

This dirge for the fantasy film genre overlooks the success of Pan's Laybrinth.

[davem]

Yes, but....Pan's Labyrinth cost $19m & has grossed $83,258,226 to date.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/...slabyrinth.htm

Good return, but not on the LotR scale, or what would be expected of TH. If TH could be done on the same scale, with the same budget & if the same profit was acceptable to the studios it would be a different matter. However, I suspect that Warner would like to see something along the lines of RotK http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/...noftheking.htm

a $94m budget producing a $1,119,110,941 gross ...

[Morthoron]

Hmmm...I have a gut feeling that The Hobbit will do just as well as LotR, whatever the domestic concern for the fantasy movie genre. Perhaps the wisest thing that was done was keeping Peter Jackson on as producer, but getting Del Toro as director. This brings in the Hellboy/Pan's Labyrinth coterie of DT devotees, as well as maintain the Frodo freaks and Lego-lusters from PJ's movies. There's a whole legion of fans of the movies who never even read the books (or are incapable of reading at all, for that matter), and then there are bitter old curmudgeons like me who had real issues with the LotR movies, but will go and see TH anyway, and then bitch about it later.

It'll do fine.

[Sauron the White]

I suspect that in the end, HOBBIT will be a bit more serious than some here would like.... it will be a bit more action oriented than some here would like ... it will have far less of the peculiar JRRT humor than some here would like ... and it will be devoid of the many songs that so many here would like.

And I suspect that it will look far too much like a LOTR film - Middle-Earth Part IV (or I) than many here will like.

And it will make scads of money, be very well recieved by the general public and set up the other move quite nicely thank you.

Trends - be they fantasy films or any other - do not apply here. What does apply is that the LOTR films were a huge success by almost any scale of measurement and most of that public is still around ready to purchase yet again. In fact, it is well that no other big fantasy film has stolen the spotlight from Middle-earth making the hunger for it only sharper over the intervening years.

We will get Ian McKellan as Gandalf again. We will get Gollum again. We get hobbits and dwarves and elves and all will be right with the world as long as that world contains the Shire and Rivendell and a few other spots. If it has enough to be familiar and make people feel confortable, then that is all that is needed.

Jackson as producer will give it enough continuinity to make it acceptable to the film fans who identify him with the franchise. And franchise it is. Del Toro brings his own street cred and abilities and it will give the film enough of a new look to avoid sequelitis.

Have faith.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

And it will make scads of money, be very well recieved by the general public and set up the other move quite nicely thank you.

I seem to recall some exec at Disney saying much the same re Prince Caspian.....& at New Line re Golden Compass.

Personally, I'm gonna wait & see....

[Sauron the White]

from davem

I seem to recall some exec at Disney saying much the same re Prince Caspian.....& at New Line re Golden Compass.

Of course executives are always going to trumpet their next releases in that fashion. The big difference however is that both the Narnia series and Compass had no cinematic track record to base anything on like the LOTR films give us in speculating about HOBBIT.

To this day I think one of the reasons CASPIAN had lesser monies than the first in the series is that the first NARNIA movie cashed in on positive LOTR fever. A portion of those people who bought tickets left the theater unsatisfied and did not go back for CASPIAN - even though many said it was a better and more adult film.

Obviously, anything can still happen. But if I could buy stock in the two Middle-earth films, I would gladly do so. Its as close to a sure thing as there is in the business of expensive film making.

[davem]

The TH movie (& sequel) will be as successful as it is close to the LotR movies - which will mean being quite far from the original book - & that's what I've been arguing for a good while. Almost no-one seems to want to see Tolkien's original story on screen - what they want is 'another LotR movie' & would thus prefer to see the proposed second movie,which will include many of the LotR characters, than Tolkien's story, which will not.

To this day I think one of the reasons CASPIAN had lesser monies than the first in the series is that the first NARNIA movie cashed in on positive LOTR fever. A portion of those people who bought tickets left the theater unsatisfied and did not go back for CASPIAN - even though many said it was a better and more adult film.

My feeling is that LWW was successful because it created (or recreated from the book) a fairytale world, & that the sequel (leaving aside its dubious morality - children killing without qualm or adverse psychological effect) was standard fantasy fare with little connection to the original story. A TH movie will suffer far more from that problem than the proposed sequel will.

EDIT http://www.startribune.com/entertain...D3aPc:_Yyc:aUU

Moviegoers have become accustomed to the "no animals were harmed" disclaimer at the end of movies. Now comes one for a new age: "The depictions of tobacco smoking contained in this film are based solely on artistic consideration and are not intended to promote tobacco consumption." Warner Bros. also adds, at the end of "Gran Torino," among other films, that no tobacco companies paid for product placement*.

I think Bilbo's pipe will probably just go...

(*What next - "The depictions of killing contained in this film are based solely on artistic consideration and are not intended to promote shooting people. No gun manufacturers paid for product placement"?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Have faith.

Wasn't it Bertrand Russell who suggested that people resort to faith only when logic or evidence fails?

Frankly, I'll reserve my faith for a more reliable object, as I'm not sure what recompense PJ can offer me or what awakening would be possible from his works.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

I think Bilbo's pipe will probably just go...

(*What next - "The depictions of killing contained in this film are based solely on artistic consideration and are not intended to promote shooting people. No gun manufacturers paid for product placement"?

I think you are forgetting just how influential the tobacco industry was in getting Hollywood movies--and Ronald Regan--to promote cigarettes. And as a European, you are probably also overlooking American views of art, drama, tv, movies and the imagination. They are mired in a realism--and a legal industry--that for Europeans would be laughable.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I think you are forgetting just how influential the tobacco industry was in getting Hollywood movies--and Ronald Regan--to promote cigarettes.

Meh...I just watched 'The Big Sleep' with Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. It seemed to me the various characters smoked more in that one movie (made in 1946) than in all movies made since 1980. Okay, I'm exaggerating, but as a smoker, even I was appalled at the amount of times Bogie and Bacall lit up -- a far cry from any movie in the past several decades. Honestly, I can't recall smoking so pronounced in any film within recent memory (save perhaps Lord of the Rings).

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

And as a European, you are probably also overlooking American views of art, drama, tv, movies and the imagination. They are mired in a realism--and a legal industry--that for Europeans would be laughable.

Just what is the American views of art, drama, tv, movies and the imagination? Being an American, I am curious as to just what my opinions are. I am sure a European can explain myself to me.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Just what is the American views of art, drama, tv, movies and the imagination? Being an American, I am curious as to just what my opinions are. I am sure a European can explain myself to me.

I should point out that Bethberry is actually from North North America - & very proud of it.