Magrat

She was probably referring to religions- they have all shared the same stories more or less. But you are right, the idea of there being just a few basic plot structures has been written about.The film industry has to pander to the US Audiences so you get the National Geographic factor-ever read it? Every Article has to help US readers relate to the subject-an article on Norfolk would include bits about Lincoln, on Ireland about all the emigrants or the kennedys. History has to be distorted  and they can''t trust US audiences to watch something that feels a bit strange to them.I have a niggle with the pervasive urban American-Jewish  type humour that runs through all the lighthearted sort of movies-it has gone from Groucho to Ben Stiller and all the kids CGI movies- I think we are so used to it that we no longer notice.And the trend  in the past for all those baby faced boy actors-Damon, Pitt ( a bit) DiCaprio  and even Depp has left a bit of a gap in the serious leading man market which Neeson Fiennes and Day Lewis cant fill cos they are English and so have to be villains  ; )I have yet to see Inception but it will have to be good to overcome the Dicaprio handicap for me anyway.They have all the money in the US and all the markets because the world will watch US movies- but I don''t think they make the most of it really, not many awe inspiring exceptional movies these days are there? Nothing to compete with the impact of Gone With the Wind for instance.

Oh well I shall have to get out the Silmarilon and The Hobbit to see how well Aidan Turner is going to dwarf up! I have fingers crossed but the chunks of LOTRs  that were left out would have been  better left in instead of shifting the emphasis on Saruman and also making film minutes of battles and Isengard disproportionate to their place in the books -but that is adaptations for you, never as good as you want them to be.Of course like the Potter films, they have so many fans that there were always going to be bums on seats, before they drew in those who didnt have a clue. Don''t know about the Hobbit- one assumes everyone who has read LOTR has also read the Hobbit-  but I can''t see anyone of my generation who is a Tolkein fan not going to see it !

As for The Hobbit no doubt Hollywood will rip all the magic out of what is s children''s book,  and  tip the balance towards the "action"just as they did with LOTR, and turn it into a CGI  battle fest with Smaug etc. They obviously have an eye on the ratings rather than sticking to the spirit of the book by casting a bunch of fit blokes as the dwarves,( JRRT spelling there in case you were getting the red pen out) going rather against JRRTs descriptions if I remember correctly.Can''t fault Freeman as Bilbo though ( unlike the startled rabbit act of Elijah Woods Frodo)

 The Inbetweeners is grossGrown men playing adolescents -yuk Reminds me of Greyfriars and Bunter

And isn''t some of the CGI rubbish too-when there are mass scenes cgi''d they too often get the speed of the movement  not quite rightAm bored now with the cgi which crosses a drawn look with naturalistic- the Beowolf ,Sin City etc

Ew- I have stopped looking at google results for remakes, let it be a jest- Tom Cruise considering Last Tango in Paris- Brando roleOh my eyes....

Black Swan- seems a pretty dated idea to those who remember black and white TV with the Red Shoes etc Ballet is a bit of a limited appeal I would have thought And Natalie Portman , a skellington with pretty eyes- can''t act, just gets directed.Be interested to see Jeff Bridges filling John wayne''s boots- I mean True Grit is worth watching just for "that " scene. I read they are meant to be going back to the book and the true story so not a makeover but a different takeDrop Dead Fred...the original used to make the kid cry and had quite a nice turn from Rik Mayall...the remake will no doubt be glossed and schmaltzed

No Officer Obieas in Alice''s restaurant

I was just listening to Badge etcbut now Father rapers sittin right there on the bench next to me...haha