I have posted my review at Suite101

[Michael Martinez]

Who's afraid of the big bad purists?

http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/tolkien

[Darth Tater]

Damn purists, they're so... pure.

Nice article, though I do have to dissagree with you about the smoking thing. I won't go into that now though, since this has already been debated in depth a while ago.

[Lelondul]

I agree - great article Michael, though your anti-smoking crusade is weak. I understand that smoking related-deaths have touched you personally - and that truly is tragic - my sympathies. But smoking is so ingrained in the cultures of Middle-earth (whether they were from Tolkien's own subconcious or not), I was actually looking forward to seeing how smoking was treated (I was even dissapointed at the lack of detail in the pipes:) ). Smoking in Middle-earth was as central to the Hobbit culture as were seed-cakes and ale. Should then, the scences in The Prancing Pony be cut for fear of young people poisoning their livers with copious amounts of fermeted grains? Gratuitous? Hardly! Lets be sensible here. Do you skip over all the smoking references when re-reading LotR because you find them so distasteful? Perhaps the Hobbit's preference for six meals a day should be omitted since obesity is rampant these days (especially in the US)?

I would personally feel more robbed had Gandalf and Bildo's smoke-ring-contest been left out as opposed to the numerous other ommitances that exist!

Your comparison of Hobbits drinking rat-poison, or blowing their brains out is completely asinine and only reveals your own deep-personal bias towards this subject. I understand what with the popularity your columns have generated, I imagine you've earned the right to make them your own personal tools for furthering your agendas, but disagreing with your potrayal of smoking's treatment in he movie as much as I do, I'm compelled to call you on this.

Keep up the good work, I find your columns by-in-large very entertaining and insightful.

Regards.

[Steerpike]

Besides, that wasn't tobacco, that was Hobbit weed!

Middle Earth is too unlike our world for me to consider those scenes to be promoting tobacco.

[Wayfarer]

I have to admit, I really am a Bad Purist.

But I liked the movie. And I plan to see it at least once more in theatre, likely twice.

Overall... It was a bit of a nip and tuck job. A little missing here, a little there, this bit relocated. But it had the right spirit.

Good enough for me.

[hama]

Of course it has been a few months since I last read FotR but I can't recall the rat poison scene or the Hobbits with hand guns scene from the books. Now smoking pipe weed DOES ring a bell.

I recently saw Micheal's version's of Titanic and Pearl Harbor but both were a bit confusing without the people dying when the ship sank or the japanese attacking the United States.

[Michael Martinez]

It's a shame so many naive people believe that smoking is important to either Middle-earth or the story. Tolkien put in a personal affectation which he did not know was a deadly, self-destructive habit. He was not a man who would have dealt with human life so callously as many of his readers today would.

If any of you can personally guarantee that not one person will take up the use of tobacco as a result of watching movies which depict tobacco use, then you are certainly justified in snickering at my rejection of gratuitous tobacco use in the films.

Of course, research has shown that movies DO influence children to take up the habit. And the fact that Tolkien was ignorant of the dangers of tobacco doesn't excuse today's generations.

Human life is precious, and should not be thrown away for the sake of making movies.

That, my friends, is just plain stupid.

Think about that.

Or not.

[Fat middle]

i think you're right: Tolkien didn't know how dangerous smoking could be. Perhaps he had not use it if he had know.

But i also think that smoking is important to the story, not from the pov of the leasure it can provide but as the symbol of friendship and that sort of peaceful life that hobbits have at the Shire. That's one of the core points of the story, and i'm glad PJ hasn't rejected a symbol that can remark it.

[Ñólendil]

I didn't mind the tobacco scenes, and I don't really know if people are going to be influenced by it (let's hope those action figures don't come with pipes), but it is probably a better idea to leave it out. Kids shouldn't see the movie anyway, it's too damn dark and scary.

I was looking forward to your review Michael. I knew you were taking the 'see it as a movie stand', and I agree with that. I didn't mind all the changes to the story as much as you did. Gimli was a bit over the top I guess (considering the book), but it didn't bother me at all. I really got my mind into the 'seeing a movie' mode.

What do you mean by the 'change in Sauron's character'? Besides the 'Sauron is the Eye' idea.

What was the subtle gesture Legolas shared with Gimli? You mean at the end of the movie? What was the line of Legolas used by someone else? I vaguely remember that, but I don't remember which line it was.

I agree about Aragorn and Boromir. It was pulled off beautifully. My mother was one of the members of the party seeing the movie with me that hadn't read the book. During the battle, after Boromir was shot with an arrow, she leaned over to my dad and said 'Is he going to die?' with worry in her voice. She almost cried when he did. Later the same day she downloaded the Enya video and she broke into tears seeing Boromir walk with the company. I really like their portrayal of Boromir.

The biggest thing that bothered me is what I'm very surprised to find unmentioned by you! Galadriel! Lothlórien! What the heck was that? Peter Jackson made all the dark scenes darker, and he made the light ones dark. He is too obviously uninspired by Light and goodness. Galadriel was the bizarre, dark witch of the Wood, which was a strange and gloomy land. It required knowledge of the romance to dislike, so it doesn't affect my overall judgment of the movie, but it still is regrettable. Why have we been forbidden a glimpse of Cerin Amroth? It was the end of the Lothlórien chapter that J. R. R. Tolkien said was the part (along with two others) that most moved him in the story.

[Michael Martinez]

The story would survive without the smoking, and any other commodity could have been shipped from the Shire to Rivendell. But though both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings depict smoking without any repercussions, it has yet to be shown that books influence young minds the way movies do. Peter Jackson was wrong to include the smoking -- which serves NO fundamental purpose in these movies, and it's extremely misguided for anyone to applaud his irresponsibility on this issue.

The fact that so many people don't give a damn about the lives which are ruined through the influence of the film industry every year shows just how far we have to go in righting a terrible wrong. There should be no exceptions. No movies should get any special dispensation on this subject.

Go stand beside the bed of any hospital patient on a respirator and you'll see instantly why it is so important for our society to learn from this terrible lesson that history has, apparently, only taught to a few.

Even if the film industry stops depicting tobacco use as of today, millions more have been condemned to die from the effects of tobacco in the coming decades. That cannot be changed. But we CAN change is the growth of that statistic.

If we can stamp out smallpox and polio, why can we not stamp out tobacco addiction? Why do people have to blindly support it in the name of art, when they would be just as quick to condemn any other form of mass murder?

Whether you shoot someone or slowly poison them over the course of 20 years, you are still killing another human being.

If none of you can restore good health and life to those who have suffered, then why are you so determined to defend Peter Jackson on this issue? Many of you have complained about Arwen. Others have complained about faithlessness to the story. But it's okay with you to have these Lord of the Rings movies blacken Tolkien's legacy by helping to induce yet another generation to poison itself through the use of tobacco products.

Is that where your priorities really lie?

[Michael Martinez]

Originally posted by Inoldonil
I was looking forward to your review Michael. I knew you were taking the 'see it as a movie stand', and I agree with that. I didn't mind all the changes to the story as much as you did. Gimli was a bit over the top I guess (considering the book), but it didn't bother me at all. I really got my mind into the 'seeing a movie' mode.

It was not so much minding (or objecting to) the changes in the story as simply being aware of them. It is jarring, to know a story so thoroughly, that one's knowledge of the tale brings up immediate corrective responses for even minor departures.

I enjoyed the movie the second time more than the first, expect that my pleasure will increase with each viewing, despite whatever flaws I may find in it. It is like breaking in a new pair of shoes. I will eventually find a comfort-level.

What do you mean by the 'change in Sauron's character'? Besides the 'Sauron is the Eye' idea.

Sauron is a physical being in the book (or else Gollum met an imposter). But Sauron also returns to life after only a thousand years in the book. The movie's prologue gives the impression that he doesn't return to life until after Sauron finds the One Ring. I don't understand why they decided to do that, unless they felt that the additional history would be encumbersome (and it might -- it's hard to tell, when you are only an armchair critic).

What was the subtle gesture Legolas shared with Gimli? You mean at the end of the movie? What was the line of Legolas used by someone else? I vaguely remember that, but I don't remember which line it was.

I think you should see the movie again. :)

The biggest thing that bothered me is what I'm very surprised to find unmentioned by you! Galadriel! Lothlórien! What the heck was that? Peter Jackson made all the dark scenes darker, and he made the light ones dark. He is too obviously uninspired by Light and goodness.

This is Peter Jackson we're talking about. He likes to make movies about good and evil, light and dark. He likes contrasts, and I'm sure that is in part why he was drawn to this story.

As for why the Lothlorien material was so brief, it's my understanding they cut 45 minutes from the movie. Hopefully, we'll see it all restored on the DvD.

[Ñólendil]

I guess I should see it again.

But are you telling me that the difference of Lórien is due simply to time-cuts? Galadriel was a strange witch-lady of the Elves! Lórien's not even seen in day-time! Surely the 'freak-out' (as Darth Tater put it to me) scene of the Lady bothered you? I prefer everything to become dark around her, and to see her in her light, tall, beautiful and terrible. PJ's Galadriel is cold, very cold.

The trouble is, I didn't see a lot of contrasts in the movies. It included good people experiencing a lot of bad things. The viewer is taken from the horror of Mória and thrown into the sadness of Lothórien, interrupted by the hideous Uruk-hai scenes under Isengard.

Don't get me wrong, as a movie I give it a 10 out of 10.

[Michael Martinez]

Originally posted by Inoldonil
I guess I should see it again.

But are you telling me that the difference of Lórien is due simply to time-cuts? Galadriel was a strange witch-lady of the Elves! Lórien's not even seen in day-time! Surely the 'freak-out' (as Darth Tater put it to me) scene of the Lady bothered you? I prefer everything to become dark around her, and to see her in her light, tall, beautiful and terrible. PJ's Galadriel is cold, very cold.

I think he filmed a more robust Galadriel than time permitted him to show us. I wasn't thrilled with the freakout scene, but then, I wasn't expecting a BBC sitting-at-tea quality production, either.

The trouble is, I didn't see a lot of contrasts in the movies. It included good people experiencing a lot of bad things. The viewer is taken from the horror of Mória and thrown into the sadness of Lothórien, interrupted by the hideous Uruk-hai scenes under Isengard.

Don't get me wrong, as a movie I give it a 10 out of 10.

I saw a lot of contrasts. Whether they were well-done -- that's a decision to be reached only after some time has passed. :)

I liked the contrasts between "Arwen of light" and "normal Arwen" (although even I would not have done that -- Glorfindel is said to have dwelt over Sea in the Blessed Realm -- Arwen has never been there).

I liked the contrasts between Aragorn and Boromir, although I also regretted the brevity of their screen time. Both characters deserve more screen time. But then, many who live deserve death. And many who die deserve life. Blah, blah, blah.

Peter Jackson's contrasts are not simply portrayed in tones of black and white. He also uses mood, sound, and action to provide contrast. Look at the scene in Moria where Pippin knocks the skeleton into the well. One moment there is total noise; the next there is total silence as the party listens for the sound of approaching enemies. Gandalf breathes a sigh of relief -- but then they hear the first screeches of the Orcs. It's a very well-done scene, as that sort of suspense has been done to death and is really very cliched. I'm surprised they pulled it off.

[Ñólendil]

I meant specifically: the contrasts between light and dark, good and evil. Particularly in the environments and story. There's much more dark and evil than there is light and good.

[Darth Tater]

I really didn't wanna get into this again, but I feel I have to comment on this anti-film-smoking cruisade. I would understand your opinion if you were simply talking about Hollywood pre-packaged films. But PJ's LOTR certainly doesn't fit into that category. It was a work of art, and he obviously felt his piece benefited from the smoking (I'd have to agree. Anyone at all formiliar with cinema can tell you that there's nothing quite as beautifull as whisps of smoke from a pipe on the silver screen. But beyond that, it shows the connection between the hobbits and Gandalf, as well as a connection to the simple rural life of a farming village.) On the Tolkien Trail my image of Strider shows him clutching a pipe, the same as in Tolkien's image and PJ's image. Do you think this artistic choice I made is offensive? As someone who works with visual mediums of all sorts, The image of Strider smoking a pipe has always been very special to me. It's difficult to put into words, but it helps define him in a visual manner.

Am I erresponsible for drawing that image? I certainly don't think so. LOTR is a thinking movie, and anyone who starts smoking because they see a hobbit and a wizard doing it obviously aren't thinking. Should PJ sacrifice his art for this small minority (which I really doubt exists)? I don't think so. I mean, the small possibility exists that someone who just kicked the habit could read this thread, see all the discussion about smoking, and decide to start up again! Of course the likelihood of that is next to nil, and not worth stopping the discussion for.

Honestly, you're ok with Aragorn slicing the arm off an orc, stabbing it in the chest, and then slicing its head off (which made the audience cheer, btw, so they obviously approved), but you have a problem with a couple of fantasy characters smoking rings and ships?

[Michael Martinez]

Originally posted by Darth Tater
I really didn't wanna get into this again, but I feel I have to comment on this anti-film-smoking cruisade. I would understand your opinion if you were simply talking about Hollywood pre-packaged films. But PJ's LOTR certainly doesn't fit into that category. It was a work of art,

I'm sure the families of the people you're helping to murder will appreciate your sentiment: that art is more important than human life.

[noldo]

Oh, come on... I'm sure a fantasy movie as surreal as FotR couldn't draw anyone, neither an adult or a child, upon smoking. And besides, they're pipes (so not necessarily tobacco in there ;)), not cigarettes.

And like Tater, I'd be much more worried about the violent scenes in the movie, not the peaceful moments enjoying a smoke or a two.

[Ben]

I too find smoking distasteful in real life and in productions.

However, that was far from the only "bad" thing that the main characters did. There was graphic violence, gore, and death onscreen. Naturally combat is more important to the plot than smoking, but there are people who would condemn any violent film or television show and argue that this would send impressionable tots off to fights. Additionally, there was alcohol use. The scene in the Prancing Pony glorifies drinking (one of the teenage-like Hobbits, maybe Pippin, saying "That comes in pints?")

Peter Jackson is hardly the worst offender on this issue, either - Hollywood as a whole is more deserving of your criticism than PJ. I wish that smoking didn't have to be in movies, but I'm not convinced that the displayed tobacco use is going to have more of an ill effect than the violence or alcohol on children.

[Michael Martinez]

Originally posted by noldo
[B]Oh, come on... I'm sure a fantasy movie as surreal as FotR couldn't draw anyone, neither an adult or a child, upon smoking. And besides, they're pipes (so not necessarily tobacco in there ;)), not cigarettes. [/q]

I hope you're right about these particular movies failing to influence anyone into thinking that the use of tobacco is cool, desirable, and safe. But if you believe that pipe-smoking is not harmful, you have obviously missed out on a truckload of data which has been published over the last 20 years.

There was no need for the use of tobacco in these movies. Furthermore, there is no point to anyone's trying to defend the use of tobacco in these movies. Reason is certainly not on your side in this matter.

If any of you seriously hope to "reason" with me on this, forget it. The tobacco companies have already admitted to their culpability and they have released documents (under subpoena, of course -- they certainly didn't give it up voluntarily) revealing just how much they relied upon movies and television to help them build their markets.

These people lied to everyone so that they could make more money by selling a highly addictive and extremely deadly substance to their customers. But if you feel they weren't lying about the health risks associated with tobacco through all those decades that people demanded to know the truth, then you have to accept they are lying now in admitting that the doctors were right all along.

In which case, why wink benignly at any effort to promote the use of tobacco, when it's only being sold by a callous group of liars who couldn't care less how many people they hurt?

That's absolutely unreasonable.

But I'll tell you what. Here is an offer of compromise. Just tell me how many people you're willing to sacrifice for the sake of putting tobacco into the movies you want to watch. I'll start counting now and will shut up until we reach that number.

Of course, I'll start counting with the tens of millions of people who have either died or are suffering from tobacco addiction around the world right now.

But at least we'll all know just how many human lives you all feel are an acceptable price to pay for the sake of making movies.

[noldo]

And what comes to the nasty effects of tobacco, I don't deny them. I witness them myself everyday. Of course pipe-smoking isn't any safer than cigarette smoking. I just meant that it's not very obvious it's tobacco they're smoking there. Yes, it's pipe-weed (referred in the film only as weed), we're in Middle-Earth! Would you take out the same kind of elements that create surrounding mood in such films as Star Wars etc. etc... We're talking about abolishing artistic rights for health guidance. I don't know about you, but to me it's parcing the freedom of speech, among other things. And when sanitary goals go beyond cinematic goals in movies, they will lose part of their magic. For instance: "What would a film about drug abuse be without actually showing drug abuse?"

We're all human. Not machines. Machines, accepting any kind of media without judgement and as if it was the truth and a total right thing to do.

Pipe-weed was a part creating the mood of the hobbits' life and taking it out would have been shadowing the truth and totally against the books. Aye, Michael?

I myself smoke, and not because I read Gandalf grab a pipe on the pages of LotR a couple of years ago.

[Darth Tater]

I've been reading your articles throughout this thread MM, and it's strange, but I don't find a single word of logic in them. You honestly think my image of Strider is going to lead people to smoking? Funny, but I have no memory of a cigarette company exec coming up to me and asking me to draw it.

I'm as anti-smoking as the next guy, even more so. I spent months a couple years ago researching the subject so I could argue with the druggies I know. Yes, I'm aware of the harmfull affects of pipesmoking. Were you aware that pipes cause more second hand smoke then first hand? Yep. It's true. They should be illegal. Of course they should.

But this is a movie! And this is not a film financed by the tobacco companies either! Find me one shred of evidence that PJ included smoking because he was paid to, and not because he wanted it in there for artistic purposes.

[Monty]

Nope, you're wrong about the smoking. You have taken a personal issue and projected it onto something in a way which is completely out of proportion. Someone has already mentioned the absurdity of taking issue with smoking and not batting an eyelid at the violence, but if we are to take your tack we may as well dismiss Tolkien for promoting racism and minimising women (both of which arguments I have heard passionately argued by people who would shake their heads in bemusement at your stand).

We know you hate smoking. It's a stupid habit. We get that. Let it go. What a nightmare the movie would have been had it attempted to conform to every nuance of political correctness.

[webwizard333]

MM has every right to fight against the presence of smoking in the movies if he chooses to. Though I do not see it as that harmful, the presence of smoking was there. Though, I felt the only place for me where it seemed to fit was when Gandalf was sitting in front of the fire, muttering to himself. I found the scene on the hill to be a little silly and Gandalf in the study smoking should not have been there. If your an old man, and your eyesights failing (I'm going to assume his was, but that's probably a mistake), or even if it wasn't, he's in a poorly lit room and is reading. Now is smoke the sort of thing you want obscuring your vision. I don't know, but (here's another probably wrong assumption) wouldn't you want to have no view obstructions. And I was also waiting for him to set fire to the documents by accident with that pipe. But back to the original point, I don't think it was nessecary, but it did contribute to the overall feel of the story being authentic.

[Lelondul]

The simple fact is that Michael cannot ethically take such an anti-smoking stance while turning a blind eye to the drinking in the film (or the violence, or the hobbit's ocassional gluttony), of which several references, both verbal and visual exist. It is common knowledge that alcohol is the most abused drug in the nation (and perhaps the world), and leads to far more deaths (and deaths of other non-drinkers) than smoking. I eagerly await to hear the rationale on this.

Yes Tater, I guess we who have romantic visions of smoking in Middle-earth are the hapless victims of a predatory Hollywood, bent on making us all cancer-riddled smoke-stacks. Poppycock! It is my belief that those who will be negatively influenced by such suggesive material are ripe for the influence of any number of perilous habits, it is not the responsibility of P.J. to detract from the source material with these cretin's 'protection' in mind.

Again, I have no problem with each having their own opinion, but one must be equilateral in addressing all aspects of such 'destructive' behaviour.

[bropous]

Yes, I read your review, and even though it is mostly a good one, the puerile whining about tobacco use in the film destroys your credibility. I can do without preachy twelve-stepping sanctimony over the Longbottom Leaf.

[Kevin McIntyre]

Regardless how people feel about smoking, there are those that smoke. To compare small pox to tobacco is way off base. Regardless of how someone is influenced (whether it be movies, print media, parents, friends whatever) smoking is a choice, diseases like small pox, polio have nothing to do with choice. However this is a tolkien site and quite frankly he took the time to explain pipe-weed development in the prologue, used it througout the story, and wrote more than one essay regarding smoking so lets just leave it be.

The Galadriel freak out scenes (as people seem to be calling it) was chilling - the words were straight from the text, and she did look terrible and worshipful, althought her beauty seemed a but lost. But her appearance is meant to change during this scene. I just wish Sam was there, not so much to look into the mirror, but to not see the ring or the transformation. But thats just me.

[Ñólendil]

I'll keep out of the main debate, but I would like to say that accusing Darth Tater of murder is a bit over the top :p

[Michael Martinez]

Having sex is a choice, and people still get AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases from that. People also show more concern over sexually transmitted diseases than they do over tobacco use, and tobacco still manages to kill or sicken more people than AIDS.

Obviously, ignorance is going to prevail in this debate for a long time to come, and that is the saddest statement our society can make about itself.

But those who defend or justify the evil that the film industry engages in are not excused from responsibility for that evil.

We can all work together to change the way our society tries to destroy us by criticizing the wrongful expressions of art and demanding a more responsible entertainment industry.

[Kevin McIntyre]

Of course Michael you will run into the argument of whether art influences or reflects culture and society. I knew aids would come into this at some point. Well my attitude is that if someone wants to smoke they are going to smoke, or drink, or do herion for that matter. Granted I do not want kids taking up the habit, but to remove any reference in our art or media rings of prohibition - and we all know how well that worked.

[Michael Martinez]

Prohibition is mandated by a government. I'm just asking the entertainment industry to stop helping murder millions of people.

What we know here in the United States about tobacco is not generally known around the world. Most people who take up tobacco products in the next few years will not be making informed decisions. They are still being lied to.

[Kevin McIntyre]

This a Tolkien site so lets just agree to disagree on this.

[hama]

Michael,

You are the most informed and insightful expert on Tolkien that I know. Your support of my musical project has been honest and appreciated. Your passion against a habit/addiction is admirable.

However I find your comment about "ignorance" to be a bit of a flame. I also think you are delving into areas of censorship which are best left untouched. A director puts on screen elements of the source material. Mallethorpe places a crucifix in a glass of urine. An artist creates a picture of the Madonna with pornographic images and cow dung. Where do we draw the line.

I understand that tobacco causes physical harm but who are we to say the harm done to faithful christians is any less? I could give other examples but those are the two that pop into mind at the moment.

Brad Marston

[Michael Martinez]

Censorship can only be practiced by a government, and it is an act whereby a work of art or journalism is edited against the will of the originator. So censorship has nothing to do with this.

And though I certainly don't wish to insult anyone, there is plainly a strong and determined point-of-view being expressed here which is firmly grounded in ignorance.

If you feel my responses are inappropriate, then there are certainly a number of options available to you and to me, but I'm not going to softpad the truth. People are dismissing the anti-tobacco concerns as if they don't mean anything. Thousands of people and hundreds of organizations around the world have been fighting this ignorance for decades. It's not going to vanish overnight, and certainly not if the truth is silenced in a forum which allows opposing views to be expressed with no response to them.

And you should note that I have not taken the misinformation that you and others have posted here (implying that I am taking out my anger against smokers, or that I have suggested somehow that Peter Jackson took money from the tobacco companies) and used it as an excuse to say or imply things about you.

This is not as personal an issue as you have mistaken it to be. I have strong personal feelings on the subject. I have admitted to that. But I'm doing the right thing, pointing out what is necessary, and standing up to people who would beat down the truth for their own reasons.

If any of you can show me that not even one life will be affected by the smoking in the movies, my concerns will be alleviated. If, however, you cannot demonstrate even so small a thing, then please don't do me the discourtesy of misrepresenting this as "a personal issue".

Perhaps the best thing you can do is lock this thread so we can all move on.

[Kevin McIntyre]

When everyone everywhere knows all of the facts do you think that no one will smoke. I completly understand the ramifications of smoking, and would never promote it, but using smoking in a movie is not promotion it is portrayal - Hobbits smoke, Gandalf smokes, Strider smokes, Gimli smokes.
Should we stop promoting junk food because there is a drastic problem in the US with obesity and it could be seen as irresponsible to promote Twinkies.

Claiming that I or anyone else in this forum is ignorant shows the troubling arrogance of the Politically Correct crowd.

[Michael Martinez]

When everyone everywhere understands the peril of using any form of tobacco, the fight will still be in its early stages. But at least the people who choose to use tobacco, knowing its perils, will be responsible for their own sorrows. To stand idly by and make excuses when people are being deceived is as bad as the deception itself.

You would run into a burning house to save a child, would you not? It takes considerably less effort, and you expose yourself to far less danger, to stand up for the truth about tobacco.

[Kevin McIntyre]

There are millions problems in the world. Religous extremism, slavery, oppression, racism, sexism, child abuse. Smoking is pretty far down my list. Now if you are talking about corporate greed of which to tobacco companies are guilty (but by no means alone) then yea sure I cry bloody murder about that all the time.

[Michael Martinez]

Your low priority for smoking (only one aspect of the tobacco use problem) won't heal the sick, restore the dead to life, or prevent millions more people from walking down a path which should never have been laid before them.

[Kevin McIntyre]

With your continued pursuit on this issue i can see I've come across a true believer and as such shows little tolerance for others opinions. Educate people against smoking, its a great fight, but don't tell me i have to fight to. The future of the nation, or mankind is not in jeopordy because of tobacco. which historically has been seen as an ill gotten habit and yet it has flourished.

Michael my main objection to your line of thinking is that I always see a very thin line between Saying you shouldn't do something and saying you can't do something. Thats where I am coming from with the prohibition reference. The temperance movement existed for a long time in this country, and had enacted local laws preventing people from drinking, eventually this crusade led to prohibition and hence creating criminals of most of america.

[FrodoFriend]

MM, when I see people walking down the street smoking foot long pipes and claiming they took up smoking because Gandalf does it, then I'll agree that the smoking scene shouldn't be there. But I really doubt that that will happen. You are overreacting, and accusing people of murder for not agreeing with you is going too far. It's frankly ridiculous.
Are people going to start wearing swords and going barefoot because of FotR too? Why not complain that the barefootness of the hobbits will lead to deadly cases of pneumonia? I seriously doubt that any one will die from taking up smoking because of this movie.
FURTHERMORE, if people do want to smoke, it's their right to do so. If they die because of this, it's their OWN STUPID FAULT!! Not anyone on this forum's, not Peter Jackson's, not even the tobacco companies. Smoking is a personal decision. If people want to jump off cliffs, they'll do it, and if they want to risk death by smoking, they'll do that too. You can't stop them and you have no right to anyway. It's not the movies fault that people choose to smoke and die in consequence.
Just let Gandalf and Bilbo enjoy their smoke, will ya? It's pipeweed anyway, not tobacco.

Anyway, since the movie's already out there's nothing you can do about it.

[Michael Martinez]

Originally posted by Kevin McIntyre
[B]With your continued pursuit on this issue i can see I've come across a true believer and as such shows little tolerance for others opinions.

That's an extremely childish attitude to take, and it shows that you are extremely intolerant. What happened to your agreeing to disagree? Why did you insist on dragging this out, so that you could inevitably flame me?

Wallow in ignorance and insults all you wish, but if the best you can offer for your lack of regard for human life is to attack my character, I think I'll gladly stay on my side of the fence, thank you. It's much nicer over here, where politeness and tolerance for other viewpoints means something.

[FrodoFriend]

Well said, Kevin!!

I wonder what Gandalf and Bilbo would think of this conversation?

[Michael Martinez]

Originally posted by FrodoFriend
[B]MM, when I see people walking down the street smoking foot long pipes and claiming they took up smoking because Gandalf does it, then I'll agree that the smoking scene shouldn't be there.

In the meantime, I take it, you won't do a thing to help people avoid taking up tobacco, or care one bit that anyone will actually be influenced by the movies to start using tobacco.

There is a reason for why the United States government forbids the tobacco companies to pay for product placement in the movies and televison: that reason is the solid research which the tobacco companies paid for which shows that movies and television have a tremendous influence on young people, and are in fact responsible for a lot of tobacco use through the years.

The fact that no one paid Peter Jackson to put tobacco products into his movies doesn't mean they will magically NOT influence young people.

All the nonsense arguments in the world aren't going to change reality. Tobacco use in film is deadly, and in this case it contributes nothing to either the story or the characterizations.

[Michael Martinez]

Originally posted by FrodoFriend
Well said, Kevin!!

I wonder what Gandalf and Bilbo would think of this conversation?

Insults and flames are never well said. Instead of contributing to the problem, try being part of the solution. That is what Gandalf and Bilbo would do.

[Kevin McIntyre]

please someone close this thread, for I am oft to argue due to the slightest provocation.

____________________
1601 (approx): Samuel Rowlands writes,
"But this same poyson, steeped India weede
In head, hart, lunges, do the soote and cobwebs breede
With that he gasp'd, and breath'd out such a smoke
That all the standers by were like to choke. "

1602: ENGLAND: Publication of Worke of Chimney Sweepers by anonymous author identified as 'Philaretes' states that illness of chimney sweepers is caused by soot and that tobacco may have similar effects.

Smoking is a custom loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, dangerous to the lungs, and in the black, stinking fume thereof nearest resembling the horrible Stygian smoke of the pit that is bottomless." -- James I of England, "A Counterblaste to Tobacco." 1604

this is not a new issue so good luck

[Michael Martinez]

Originally posted by Kevin McIntyre
please someone close this thread, for I am oft to argue due to the slightest provocation.

Oh, please. No one provoked you. And I did let several insults and flames from others slide before you started in.

If you don't want to participate in a flame war, then I suggest you neither start them nor jump into them.

[Kevin McIntyre]

so what influenced people before television and radio. You are trying to dictate a person actions. Actions that do not affect anyone but the individual. And do not bring up second hand smoke issues, that is seperate and has been dealt with (heavy handily) by restricting where someone can smoke. And don't tell me Im being childish - legislation was presented in the mid-west last month that would forbid smoking in once own home. So the thin lines seems to be fading.

[Michael Martinez]

Originally posted by Kevin McIntyre
[B]so what influenced people before television and radio.

This isn't about what influenced people before television and radio. This is about what influences young people today.

You are trying to dictate a person actions.

No. I'm just trying to teach the ignorant, foolish, and vain. That is always a thankless task, and one guaranteed to produce a rain of rotten tomatoes from the darker corners of the world.

It is better to stand up and speak the truth, than to look away and allow a lie to go unchallenged.

[Kevin McIntyre]

This all started with your review if you remember, which was very positive except for the smoking. This is obviously due to your personal ajenda about smoking.

[Michael Martinez]

Originally posted by Kevin McIntyre
This all started with your review if you remember, which was very positive except for the smoking. This is obviously due to your personal ajenda about smoking.

No. I only devoted a couple of paragraphs to pointing out that Peter Jackson was wrong to include gratuitous tobacco use in the movie. This all started when people decided to turn this into a flame war against Michael Martinez.

If you're so intolerant of other people's points of view that you have to attack them for saying something you don't agree with, you're much too ill-equipped to be teaching me anything about who is responsible for what.

[Kevin McIntyre]

Originally posted by Michael Martinez


In the meantime, I take it, you won't do a thing to help people avoid taking up tobacco, or care one bit that anyone will actually be influenced by the movies to start using tobacco.




If someone takes up smoking based on the actions of someone in a movie, then that peson has other problems that need addressing as well.

Its not that I don't agree with you on the fact that smoking is a dangerous thing to be involved with (as are many things) and that people should be educated to the harmful affects. I just disagree with someone smoking in a movie, whether it intregal to the plot or not.

Let me put this in other terms, At the FDR memorial in washington DC there is no reference to the fact that FDR smoked cigarettes. But we all know he did, historically its a fact. the cigarette holder was part of his persona but it is the Politcally Correct people that believe by removing this from the memorial they are accomplishing their goal, which in fact they are not , they are satisfying themselved by thinking they did their part. Education is the only means of preventing people from smoking, efforts in other areas, although well intentioned, have little affect.

[Michael Martinez]

Originally posted by Kevin McIntyre
[B]

If someone takes up smoking based on the actions of someone in a movie, then that peson has other problems that need addressing as well.

So, basically, your reaction to anything you don't agree with is to denigrate and insult other people.

Whether FDR smoked has nothing to do with the fact that the film industry influences young people to use tobacco TODAY. Whether someone objected to smoking in the 1600s has nothing to do with the fact that millions of people are starting a deadly habit this year, a habit which will sicken most of them, kill many of them, and drain them all of money which could be spent on other things.

Whether a law is passed in the mid-West forbidding people to smoke in their own home won't change the fact that you have made an absurd attempt to justify or rationalize doing nothing about the serious problem that faces our society.

All the insults and nonsense you can toss at me and anyone else you suddenly feel superior to won't make you right or any less responsible for being on the wrong side.

Nazi soldiers argued they were only following orders at Nuremburg. We hung them anyway. And some of those guys killed far fewer people than tobacco company executives, who have all pretty much gotten away with poisoning and killing millions of people around the world.

[Kevin McIntyre]

Originally posted by Michael Martinez



If you're so intolerant of other people's points of view that you have to attack them for saying something you don't agree with, you're much too ill-equipped to be teaching me anything about who is responsible for what.

I do not think I have demonstrated intolerance. Nor am I attacking you. You are taking our disagreement personally, which you shouldn't.

[Michael Martinez]

Originally posted by Kevin McIntyre


I do not think I have demonstrated intolerance. Nor am I attacking you. You are taking our disagreement personally, which you shouldn't.

But you have shown intolerance, and in part by attacking me. You obviously feel your casually lobbed insults are acceptable behavior. I don't. And I don't take anything personally. I just recognize cheap shots, insults, and flames for what they are.

There is an old saying: you'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Of course, you're not the one who cut in with "assinine" and "puerile whining", but you're just as bad as them, since you insisted on dragging this out for no good reason whatsoever.

[Kevin McIntyre]

Originally posted by Michael Martinez


So, basically, your reaction to anything you don't agree with is to denigrate and insult other people.

Whether FDR smoked has nothing to do with the fact that the film industry influences young people to use tobacco TODAY. Whether someone objected to smoking in the 1600s has nothing to do with the fact that millions of people are starting a deadly habit this year, a habit which will sicken most of them, kill many of them, and drain them all of money which could be spent on other things.

Whether a law is passed in the mid-West forbidding people to smoke in their own home won't change the fact that you have made an absurd attempt to justify or rationalize doing nothing about the serious problem that faces our society.

All the insults and nonsense you can toss at me and anyone else you suddenly feel superior to won't make you right or any less responsible for being on the wrong side.

Nazi soldiers argued they were only following orders at Nuremburg. We hung them anyway. And some of those guys killed far fewer people than tobacco company executives, who have all pretty much gotten away with poisoning and killing millions of people around the world.

With every post you make you prove my point more and more. How am I denigrating or insult you. You are the one comparing me to Nazi's.

[Michael Martinez]

Originally posted by Kevin McIntyre
With every post you make you prove my point more and more

Truer words were never spoke. Or, in your case, so mis-spoke.

[Kevin McIntyre]

Originally posted by Michael Martinez


Truer words were never spoke. Or, in your case, so mis-spoke.

Your logic escapes me. What you are saying is that because I know that smoking is harmful (dreadfully so) then I should rail against references to it in a movie.

[Michael Martinez]

Originally posted by Kevin McIntyre
[B]

Your logic escapes me.

That was obvious from the start. But you never bothered to ask for clarification. Like the other flamers, you started in with ridiculous arguments, confident in your ability to fling insults.

What I am saying is that the right thing to do is to object to the gratuitous use of tobacco in the "Lord of the Rings" movies, and I gave the reasons for why that is right in the review of the movie.

Human life is too precious to waste on deadly addictions. It's a shame that more people haven't learned from history's lessons regarding this issue.

[Kevin McIntyre]

My references to the past are important. They clearly show that understanding tobacco's harm is not anything new. What the tobacco companies have done is immoral, but not isolated - look at what is happening in Alabama with PCB's in the soil. Corporate greed is a seperate issue.

[Kevin McIntyre]

Originally posted by Michael Martinez


That was obvious from the start. But you never bothered to ask for clarification. Like the other flamers, you started in with ridiculous arguments, confident in your ability to fling insults.

What I am saying is that the right thing to do is to object to the gratuitous use of tobacco in the "Lord of the Rings" movies, and I gave the reasons for why that is right in the review of the movie.

Human life is too precious to waste on deadly addictions. It's a shame that more people haven't learned from history's lessons regarding this issue.
Just because some disagrees with you they are not flaming you. Objecting in your review may seem like the right thing to do to you, but to many it strike of Political Correctness, which accomplishes little but stifles dialog, by restricting what you can and can not say or depict.

[Michael Martinez]

Originally posted by Kevin McIntyre
[B]My references to the past are important.

No. Your references to the past are irrelevant, and they show that you don't understand A) what is at stake and B) what you, by yourself, may be capable of achieving -- for good or ill.

Your every stupid post and argument in this thread can potentially convince some naive young person that using tobacco really isn't all that big a deal.

There is no middle ground in this debate. You either stand up for life, or you try to take it away. The choice is yours, and only you are responsible for what you say.

[Michael Martinez]

Originally posted by Kevin McIntyre
[B]
Just because some disagrees with you they are not flaming you.

Your insults and snide remarks are the flames.

You didn't simply disagree with me. You attacked me. And when I pointed out that people will surely be influenced by the movies they see, you attacked THEM, too.

How is it that you can be so sure God made you better than everyone else, such that all your judgements and ridicule are infallibly correct?

[Kevin McIntyre]

Seriously folk, this is obviously a deeply personal issue for Michael and more power to him. To me its more important to defend ones write of expression.

[Michael Martinez]

Originally posted by Kevin McIntyre
...but to many it strike of Political Correctness, which accomplishes little but stifles dialog, by restricting what you can and can not say or depict.

Here you demonstrate yet more of your ignorance. Political correctness is the art of not giving offense. Nothing more. Nothing less. To be politically correct, I would have to say nothing at all.

Furthermore, pointing out that people are dying in no way forces anyone to say or depict one scene less in their movies than they wish.

I said, "Shame on you, Peter". I didn't threaten him. I didn't call for a boycott of the movie. I didn't demand that he be brought up on charges.

I merely pointed out that he was wrong to do what he did. But I respect his right to make the movie he wants to make. I didn't call him names. I didn't misrepresent what he said. I didn't attack his character. I simply said he should be ashamed of what he has done, for the tobacco use only hurts the movie and the story.

For that, I have been called assinine, accused of puerile whining, and told that whatever happened 300 years ago is more important than what we could prevent from happening tomorrow.

You have a great deal to learn about truth, logic, and the difference between right and wrong. Your childish attitude leads me to believe you probably won't learn those lessons. But I've given you more time and consideration than you have given to the people who will die because they take up the use of tobacco in the next few days.

[Kevin McIntyre]

Originally posted by Michael Martinez


Your insults and snide remarks are the flames.

You didn't simply disagree with me. You attacked me. And when I pointed out that people will surely be influenced by the movies they see, you attacked THEM, too.

How is it that you can be so sure God made you better than everyone else, such that all your judgements and ridicule are infallibly correct?

Review the posts to determine who is attacking who. I am attacking a part of your position, you are attacking me - I reference your use of the Nazi.

What is at stack here exactly?

[Michael Martinez]

Originally posted by Kevin McIntyre
Seriously folk, this is obviously a deeply personal issue for Michael and more power to him. To me its more important to defend ones write of expression.

Kevin, the more you try to portray this as "a deeply personal issue for Michael", the sillier you look, because you obviously cannot let it go.

[Michael Martinez]

Originally posted by Kevin McIntyre
[B]

Review the posts to determine who is attacking who. I am attacking a part of your position, you are attacking me - I reference your use of the Nazi.

Which had nothing to do with you or your character.

[Ñólendil]

"There are millions problems in the world. Religous extremism, slavery, oppression, racism, sexism, child abuse. Smoking is pretty far down my list. Now if you are talking about corporate greed of which to tobacco companies are guilty (but by no means alone) then yea sure I cry bloody murder about that all the time."

--Kevin McIntyre

I'll jump in to say that religous extremism, slavery, oppression, racism, sexism and child abuse are certainly not present in the FOTR movie. Well, there is naturally Racism, but it is perceived to be a bad thing, like in the romance. But this debate arose over pipe-weed, in the FOTR movie, which is not seen in a bad light and is perceived to be a good thing in the romance. Let's try not to stray too far from movie discussion, the debate's about whether or not PJ should have included tobacco in the films, and whether or not people will be influenced by it, is it not?

...

O-kay! Reading through the rest of the thread, it appears I'm far too late! :D You guys haven't started spitting on eachother yet (though the insulting began a while ago), so I'm still hopeful you'll resolve (or end) the argument somehow.

I only request that the debate be more centered around the portrayal of tobacco in the film, the Fellowship of the Ring. That's what this thread is about, that's what the forum is about. Say MM is wrong and his concern is needless and his dissapointment absurd, but explain your reasoning, unless you think he's an old cracked purist with personal issues he can't let go (I don't think I need to be discreet, MM's heard it all before :p ) in which case, remember what Thumper's mother used to tell him.

Really, Kevin, Michael, we have serious ground-rules on Entmoot: You can strongly disagree but you can't pull hair, throw sand, or tattle-tell. Chill! Your posting on a forum with goofy faces ( :eek: )and administrators with names like Darth Tater. How mad can you really be, taking in the environment? :)

[Michael Martinez]

Mad? Mad? Mad ain't got nothing to do with it, assinine and puerile though it all may seem to some.

Frankly, I think the other option (mentioned in my email) was preferable to your (unintentionlly) inviting people to flame me even more (yes, I've seen it all, but that doesn't mean I want to see it all again).

[Fat middle]

i think it is better to calm down and let time pass before putting anything else in this thread. lately it has become a sort of tennis match.