> > Join me in my attemt to make Hollywood reconise that factual films should have some small nugget of truth in them.
>
> To me, it would all depend on what kind of movie it is. If it's supposed to be historically correct, then of course, it should portray the correct kind of landscape.
>
> But if it's a fantasy or fairy tale sort of story, then by all means, let it take place in the Norfolk mountains, the Norwegian jungle or on a glacier in South America. Actually, I think that's an excellent idea, because that would add to the mythical air of it.

I've tracked down a news article on the subject and it's a near-future fantasy. If you are going to make such sweeping changes to topology however, it is no longer meaningful to say that it is set on earth, or at least not within 100 million years of the present day.

There doesn't seem to be any reason why Norfolk should be chosen as the setting. If the mountains are neccessary (and that isn't obvious, either) then why not have it set somewhere where there are mountains?

Disney state that is is acceptable because out of 200 million expected viewers, only 2 million are likely to know that Norfolk is one of the flattest places in Europe. Something stikes me as terribly wrong about that logic.

winter"The annoying thing is, this makes me want to see the film"mute