The "whole thing" is infinitely complicated by the fact that Hollywood was bought out by the tobacco industry years and years ago. Tobacco companies paid nicely for "product placement" as a way to promote the social acceptability and attractiveness of smoking and therebye increase cigarette sales. Even Ronald Reagan (while still just an actor) was hired to promote smoking.

So what is wrong with reversing decades of propaganda through hidden merchandising?

And there's no logical reason why one aspect, if it is proven harmful, should not be controlled or eliminated just because there are other equally harmful aspects that are yet to be controlled or recognised as harmful. It's called one step at a time.

Tolkien was hooked on nicotine. Bottom line, he was an addict. His substance was legal, but he was still an addict.

No he wasn't. He was a smoker. There's no evidence to believe that he couldn't have stopped at any time he wanted. Of course as he was perfectly happy with his pipe I can't see that there was any problem. He managed to give up his car when he saw the damage the infernal combustion engine was doing to the environment & in my experience as a non driver, that is the real addiction. Fumes far, far more dangerous than any amount of second hand smoke, far more destructive to to humans & the environment, but can drivers give up their addiction to the car? Smoking is an innocent pleasure in comparison to the evils of the car, & the motor industry has Hollywood equally in its pocket - if not more so (& heaven knows how much profit Smith & Wesson made out of the Dirty Harry movies).

Other than using a Palantir to peer into into Tolkien's mind--and the past--we do have some evidence that nicotine is a highly addictive drug that causes most people who attempt to give up smoking to go into withdrawal. Calling Tolkien simply a smoker is a fancy bit of denial--a common trait among addicts. Most smokers are addicted.

And Tolkien gave up driving a car when he realised what a hazard he was as a driver. He didn't stop using automobiles and would hire drivers to take him and his family on excursions, medical visits, etc.

Frankly, I think that when/if The Hobbit is ever shown on the big screen, it ought to come with trailers and adverts about lung diseases. Maybe even Gandalf coughing up and gasping for breath and reminding people that ships sailing west for healing were only available to Frodo and Gimli. Pictures of smokers' lungs would be pretty appetising beside those hobbit second breakfasts, too.

Yes, well, as Chesterton pointed out in the excerpt I gave earlier:

, its a habit, but its not a sin. People do lots of things which are bad for them. Smoking is also a very relaxing & quite pleasurable indulgence - & I note in passing that the guy who invented jogging died from a heart attack while out jogging. I further note in passing that 100% of non smokers die.

And surely there should be trailers & adverts depicting the horrors of alcoholism in movies where beer is drunk, the horrors of road accidents where cars appear in movies, of aircrashes when planes appear, of the horrors of global warming whenever a movie has scenes of cows (the methane produced by cattle apparently being one of the greatest contributors to climate change), of the Inquisition whenever a movie has a priest appearing in it. And let's not miss the chance to show trailers about Aids when two people of the opposite sex appear on screen.

Or we could just leave folk to their indulgences & let them take their chances. Personally, I accepted that one day something is going to finish me off, whatever I do, or don't do. I don't lecture others as to what they should or shouldn't do - I' like to think I'm quite 'Hobbitish' in that way. If it shouldn't be shown on films without anti smoking adverts being shown I can't see that it should be permitted in the books with similar warnings (though I expect to find such warnings will appear fairly soon, to be followed, no doubt, by the smoking references being edited out, along with the mentions of over-eating, the consumption of beer & all mention of pubs, the pipeweed to be replaced by healthy snacks of carrot sticks & celery, & the pubs by gyms.) Hobbits smoke too much, drink too much & eat too much & they don't jog or preach.

I am not quite certain why you keep including that Chesterton quote in the conversation, as he was neither an authority on the subject, nor entirely subjective. The man died in 1936 and obviously had no conception of the addictive nature of nicotine or the proven health risks. Needless to say, cocaine, morphine and heroin were legal in his lifetime (not even listed as controlled substances until WWI). G.K. might have had a Coca-Cola or two prior to 1903 laced with cocaine (an advertised ingredient up to that point).

I think that smoking for most long-term users is no longer a habit or a 'pleasurable indulgence' (that would include myself and my pack-a-day jones). I cannot merely smoke a single cigarette in a day without significant discomfort; whereas, I can drink several porters in a single sitting and go for weeks without another (which would be disconcerting and unnecessary perhaps, but quite doable).

However, that being said I do not believe that removing pipe-smoking from The Hobbit or adding warnings is warranted as the story takes place in another age altogether. I despise attempts to homogenize literature or film due to the expedience of political correctness, particularly in the film industry which seems to be picking and choosing its ethics, which in itself is unethical.

There are great benefits to the internal combustion engine. Society as we know it would stop in its tracks without it. The lives of hundreds of millions of people would radically change as we know it.

You cannot say the same for smoking. No way - no how.

Someone with an actual name and historical record is credited as inventing jogging? That is incredible! I was under the impression that running was a natural human movement that the human race has been doing since it has been on two feet. To now discover that it was only recently invented and it killed its creator is some bit of information.

I know. It's an absolute sin the way people take things in directions never meant. But if you want to talk about sin, I suppose you could explain if you mean smoking is not a venal sin or not a mortal sin. Myself, I've been talking about physiological addiction, so on that ground smoking would not be a sin, as it is no longer a voluntary act.


Actually, I'm waiting to hear that the casting for The Hobbit will be colour blind. I can just imagine the dilemma between choosing an Asian actor for Bilbo and Blacks for the dwarves, or a Black actor for Bilbo and Asian ones for the dwarves. Or maybe they will make all the dwarves female actors, but of course we'd never know it. I'm sure that if they made Smaug green, leprecauns would object, so I suspect that is out for Smaug.

Perhaps they could get Morgan Freeman to be Gandalf. He's always cast as the wise old black guy (excuse me, African-American gentleman) in films. I could well imagine James Earl Jones as the voice of Smaug. Jackie Chan as Bilbo? It would be a hoot to hear him say the line "Thag you bery buch".

But I can. I smoke the odd cheap cigar as & when but can go for days, even weeks, without - & I was the when I smoked a pipe. Many people, unlike you, cannot go for weeks (even hours) without a drink. But this is not the point - the point is the one Chesterton made - smoking is being treated as a 'sin' not simply a potentially 'dangerous' activity. I've seen people in cars waiting at traffic lights with their engines running wafting away cigarette smoke from passing smokers - all the while churning out poison from their exhaust pipes, & mother's pushing their children along the street at rush hour with their faces at the same height as those exhaust pipes getting angry because someone fifty feet away is smoking a cig. Banning smoking from movies, or forcing movie goers to watch anti-smoking adverts because some smokers die from their habit (& most of them die in their 70's, 80's & 90's when they were going to die of something anyway) is as irrational as banning cars or inflicting dangerous driving adverts showing bodies scattered over the highway because cars kill people.

I'm not advocating smoking at all. Its none of my business whether or not people indulge. Yes, its an indulgence that may well kill you before something else does - but that's all one can say for it - 'cos something is going to kill you.

In modern times, things are only labelled as 'sins' as it makes it that much easier for Governments to make lots of tax out of them. That's why sex is no longer a sin but eating lovely greasy chips out of newspaper or smoking a ciggie is. You cannot tax the former but you can tax the latter. And what's more you can get all self-righteous about it too. ;)

There is no tax in Middle-earth so smoking, drinking ale or eating lard is no sin.

The day they put health warnings on films at the cinema will be the day I start looking round for the poster of Big Brother that I've got to salute. I note that it was the evil venture capitalist/despot that was Saruman who also carted off all the pipeweed in The Shire. ;)

from Bethberry
21st century political correctness has already tainted the dramatic presentation of JRRT's works. In the LOTR musical which played last year in Toronto, the role of Boromir was played by a Black actor - Dion Johnstone. I cannot even use the politically correct term and refer to him as an African-American because he may have been Canadian.
Not only was it a bit jarring to the eye but the role was poorly written and not one of the better aspects of the play. I saw the same actor a few weeks ago in TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD and he was very good as Tom Robinson.

I suppose that is why some countries have opted to legalise houses of prostitution. Would that be a Value Added Tax? What surcharges would apply? A bit difficult for tourists to carry any goods home and then claim a rebate though.

I believe that in capitalist terms that would be a cartel, no? Or would it be a monopoly? I can never tell the difference between one which is supposed to be acceptable and one which is a no-no. And then there are non-competes, which are the blackest things of all apparently.

I think the producers missed a Great White Moment there. I was expecting them to cast Inuit actors as the hobbits. Think how that would have increased the Canadian Content, to say nothing about the significant thematic implications.

Ian Holm was a good Bilbo, but he played Bilbo at 111 so I don't know...the public would be looking for someone like him...and I would NOT watch the Hobbit without Serkis and McKellen. ...well maybe without Mckellen. and will Sting look the same?

Yes, and apparently the latest stage version of LOTR had black Hobbit extras. It is annoying, especially when Tolkien specified no such thing. Reminds me of that horrid Robin Hood series we had last year; despite being set in England in the Middle Ages, there were Muslims and Africans all over the place. There's a time and a place for multiculturalism and neither of these were it.

I can't imagine why not.

Ummmmmmm didn't the harfoots have some kind of brown skin? I can't remember to save my life what word Tolkien used to describe them but I'm sure that's what he said. Maybe not black but I'm sure not all the hobbits in the Shire would have been white.

In the Prologue of LotR Tolkien describes the Harfoots as "browner of skin" and goes on to say that they were "the most normal and representative variety of Hobbit, and far the most numerous".
I'm hazarding a guess though that contrast in skin tones between Harfoots and the fairer Fallohides is not that marked - more of a Northern/Southern European contrast. IIRC no Hobbit is described as "swarthy" which seems to be Tolkien's word of choice to describe persons who are markedly darker than, say, the average person of Bree or Gondor.

I think the "browner of skin" thing came from maybe the Harfoots were more tan by nature that the two other types of hobbits that the names escape me now.:) I need to get my books out again.

Got My books
 

The three kinds of hobbits are:
The Harfoots,
The Fallowhides,
and The Stoors.
:)

Doesn't Tolkien mention the hobbits coming fron the east, relatively a short time compared to the Edain etc...... just a thought.

Yes he does.

They went over the Misty Mountains.

Well then, since they are a sub-species of man and they come from the east they might share the same ethnicity as men that way.

Well Tolkien did describe them the way he wanted to, and it did not say that they were say...from the middle east or Africa or the Americas. and since the he was writing about middle earth which was essentially England, I wouldn't think that they would have people of other races in that particular time period, now the Easterlings would probably be a bit darker of skin as the people of Rohan, right? So the same thing would apply to hobbits. Thats just my opinion.

No no, Middle Earth is meant to be the whole of Eurasia and Africa. Only the north-west of Middle Earth is meant to be Europe and the Shire Britian. (I like to think of the north Farthing being Scotland;)) There were 'swarthy' Easterlings and I'm sure he talks about black men from Harad, from the 'burning heats' down South.

Oh so does that mean that the Men from Numenor were uh like Africans?

Oh wait Numenor was uh drowned and it was kinda a magical country so to speak.

No:rolleyes:, I just don't believe you can read Tolkien and not believe there were races of men in his story which basically followed the present day arrangement. It was a fictionalised version of our own world. He did not envisage a monochromatic one by any means.

I see, I just thought... oh nevermind. I'll go back to smoking my invisible pipe and singing Bilbos bath Song.

Sorry this is the thread about the hobit movie ? ;)
 

Mandrake in the Telegraph yesterday claims that PJ has made it up with New Line and will make the Hobbit with Sir Iam McLuvvie reprising his role as Gandalf. I find it rather depressing. I had got rather excited about seeing a different vision of ME. If it is to be PJ again I almost feel I know whatit will be like already :( .

Tolkien is big enough not to be reliant on one director's interpretation...

Same old same old.....but that's what most of the movie fans want - in fact, as most of them haven't read the book I strongly suspect most of them want (& PJ will move heaven & earth to give them) Aragorn & Legolas in there too.

There won't be anything new at all - but that's what audiences want from sequels - exactly the same story with the same actors, but with bigger sets & louder explosions. Personally, I find the idea of a Hobbit movie holds no appeal at all.

Now, if we were talking about a Guillermo del Toro 'Smith', or a Terry Gilliam 'Giles'.....

Now that "July 2007" has come and gone, is there any chance of starting some kind of internet petition for at least one of these ideas? It would be intriguing to see what kind of 'legs' the ideas have. :cool:

\

I'd also like to see Ang Lee get his hands on CoH (after I've persuaded him to film Njal's Saga.....)

For better or worse (depending on your leanings!), Shaye and New Line are again negotiating with PJ (as Mithalwen confirmed a few posts before), despite the fact that Shaye vowed earlier not to have anything to do with him. Here's one of the many stories out there in recent days: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1000...t/news/1662251.

But while some of these suggest Peter Jackson will direct, others claim he will confine himself to producing with Sam Raimi tagged as director. I assume that New Line is under a lot of pressure because of their recent financial problems and the fact that the clock is ticking down.....

These various stories seem to point in the same direction - Shaye and PJ's reps are talking. Beyond that nothing. As a big supporter of Jackson and the LTOR films, I dearly want to see him both produce and direct THE HOBBIT. This is the best news we have had in months.

from davem

Interesting suggestion .... Lee could make a totally brilliant film that combines the lush scenery of ME with the angst and troubles of the lead character..... or it could be a real depressing film that simply looks good.

For my money, the best thing that Lee ever did was EAT, DRINK, MAN, WOMAN. I just cannot accept so much of TIGER/DRAGON with its defying of the most basic physics. Yeah, I know its a genre thing - but so much of it just looked stupid. The landscapes were beautiful and it sure made for great stills - but the flying stuff just is not my cup of tea. BAREBACK MOUNTING is one of the greatly overrated films of the last few years. Were it not for its so called "cutting edge" subject matter, it would have made a very tiny splash. It faded like a dying meteor in the months between release and the Oscars and has been almost unheard of since that time. But like lots of films set in the American West, it sure looked glorious.

davem - what is it about Lee that spurs you to make this statement? What do you especially like in his films?

Yeah, I'm curious as well. Why Lee?

Well, just to be polite - 'cos I haven't too much time at the moment.

Firstly, you have to avoid at all costs an 'action movie' director like PJ. Lee would give us a grown up move that treated the story seriously & he can handle action scenes without descending into thud & blunder histrionics or losing control of the CGI. The rest is a matter of taste - I'd just like to see his version.

Ang Lee also did a very good job on Sense and Sensibility. I am not a film expertor even a great filmbuff, but I doubt many directors could provide both the impressive action that hollywood demands and have the delicate touch the story needs from what I have seen of his work he could. The unfulfilled love of the characters of Chow Yun Fat and Michelle Yeoh moved me deeply- I can imagine he would handle the problems of the Turin- Nienor relationship sensitively.

davem ... while you and I are at complete opposites regarding the worth and quality of the Jackson films, I do think you may have something regarding the Ang Lee idea. COH just could be the thing for Lee. His two big strengths seem to be the capturing of beautiful visuals and Middle-earth certainly has that - and the deft hadling of characters that are less than optimistic or the usual hero types. Lee could be just the director for COH.

I do think that if you expect a ratcheting down of action scenes you badly do not understand the commercial aspect of modern film. Filming something like COH would be a minimum $100 million (US dollars) venture. A studio putting out that kind of money would want a proven money making model to follow - and as much as you would not like it - the Jackson LOTR films would be front and center in their mind.

I feel that there was a more than proper balance in the Jackson films and Hollywood looks at the box office receipts and most likely agrees. COH would have plenty of action. But perhaps Lee could present it differently and balance it with the more personal struggle of Turin.

I do think you are onto something with this idea.