[TV] “Constantine” Just Quit Smoking!

Constantine - Season Pilot

This is news to me. Not just that “Constantine” quit smoking, but that he smoked in the first place since I’ve never seen the movie or read the comics. Yet, the upcoming NBC/Warner Bros. adaptation of the DC Comics character appears to have cut one of his most defining character traits.

Collider caught up with Neil Marshall (Dog Soldiers, The Descent), who directed the pilot, and he said in no uncertain terms that the smoking had to go. “No we’re not. It’s the one thing, a compromise I guess. On network it’s the one thing you can’t smoke on network. That’s one of his character traits. We’re working around that. We’re trying to get aspects of it in there as much as possible. We’ll see.

The shot, set to premiere October 24, is “about occult master and demon hunter John Constantine, who is tasked with defending humanity from the forces of evil.” Matt Ryan, Harold Perrineau Jr., Lucy Griffiths and Charles Halford star. Daniel Cerone and David S. Goyer exec produce.

 
Source: Collider
  • xxthedaymanxx

    Quite a shame since a storyline hinges on that aspect of his character.

    • ChildoftheKoRn

      FIGHTER OF THE NIGHT MAN.

      • xxthedaymanxx

        Champion of the Sun

        • ChildoftheKoRn

          You’re a master of karate!

    • Weresmurf

      The story can still happen, albeit it’ll be weakened aesthetically, just mention he used to be a heavy smoker until he got lung cancer.

  • Chrissie-Watkins

    That’s kind of like Kojak without his Tootsie Pop, no?

  • Sick_skwerl

    Excessive violence? No problem. Harsh language? You got it. Smoking? Oh god no, what if little Billy watches this?! He’d start smoking like a chimney!
    Dear America, go fuck yourself.
    Love, a pissed off American.

    • Weresmurf

      There kind of has been copious amounts of studies into people taking up studies due to the influence media can play in making smoking look ‘cool. Hence why advertising of cigarettes was banned. This isn’t a videogame situation where the information is very, very rare and very biased. There’s actual proof. So it’s not without merit.

      • brewers_rule

        Parents are in charge of their kids and adults can make their own decisions. It’s not the government nor media’s job to TELL THEM what they can & can’t see. Considering the advertising’s been gone for years and the fact less than 20% of Americans smoke, you’re talking about focusing on a non-problem purely out of supposedly protecting the children. That’s a slippery slope oh-so-many politicians constantly use to destroy your freedom of choice & one everyone should see through as @bloodydisgusting-c5326d38e4c3ee8085a8a8c8c5f2d3ca:disqus has done nicely here. As Marilyn Manson once said, “Raise your kids or I’ll raise ‘em for you.”

        • Weresmurf

          And now kids, let’s use what we call hard evidence.

          http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762370.html

          Here you will see the official statistics of smokers since 1965. Around the 1970s the information campaigns in regards to smoking causing cancer started. In the 1990s, advertising cigarettes was banned in a lot of places, some only following through into the 2000s.

          Your statistic of 20% is not quite correct for the modern day, infact it’s something closer to 15% for 2012 but the stat isn’t supplied here, but let’s look back a few years:

          1965 42.4%
          1970 37.44%
          1980 33.23%
          1990 25.52%
          2000 23.32%
          2002 22.52%
          2003 21.62%
          2004 20.92%
          2007 20.82%
          2010 19.3%

          This trend does not occur naturally, people do not just get sick of smoking given nicoteine is one of the most powerful narcotics in the world. (Narcotic (def): an addictive drug affecting mood or behaviour).

          These statistics occur when coupled hand in hand with anti smoking campaigns, removal of advertising, limiting of places of smoking in society, re-fitting society to accept smoking is a disgusting, dirty, smelly habit that has zero upsides.

          While parents do indeed have an obligation to tell their children not to smoke, name me a teenager who listens to their parent 100% of the time? If a teen has positive advertising for a product shoved in their face, it will have a lasting effect on them.

          Evidence: http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20110113/cigarette-ads-a-powerful-lure-for-teen-smoking

          You’ve taken Marilyn Mansons quote directly out of context. The actual quote was:
          “If somebody kills themselves because of our music, then that’s one less stupid person in the world…Raise your kids better or I’ll be raising them for you.”

          But even taken in context, parents do have an obligation towards their children, just as a Government has an obligation towards its people. There are *zero* upsides to smoking cigarettes and only downsides. The Government has an obligation to stop pushing carcinogens on people and allowing them to be pushed. They stepped in with the advertising and the undeniable statistics prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. When information becomes more and more available to the mass public, better decisions are *generally* made.

          As Manson also said:
          ” I found those electric cigarettes because I hate cigarettes, I never smoked them.”

          http://www.providermodule.com/media/?v=i/2012/nova_rumours

          • Some Person

            Upsides to smoking? Tobacco is a major anti-inflammatory drug, children reared around smokers have less allergies and are less likely to suffer from asthma, smoking creates a social setting and social interaction is crucial to human development. Most important of all it makes smokers bloody feel better.

            Stop trying to shove your narrow, one-sided, close-minded perspective down other people’s throats.

          • Weresmurf

            Sorry pardon me I need a shovel to get through your bullshit…

          • brewers_rule

            I love someone who defends government control by using government studies. It’s like asking Jim Jones if his Kool-Aid’s tainted while raising your cup for a refill of it.
            By the way, while you’re defaming cigarettes, do you happen to have studies of the harmful effects of second hand highs for children who are around pot smoking by chance? Seeing as how marijuana apparently is just fine & healthy enough to legalize everywhere lately..that is until those evil cigarette companies start producing & promoting it as they add all those poisonous additives used to kill their paying customers, right?

          • Craig Patterson

            Pot is 100% harmless. Are you a moron? Tobacco, in its pure form, is not very harmful. The 3000-5000 chemicals/additives they put in cigarettes is what kills people… but its also what makes smoking so addictive.

          • brewers_rule

            Pot is harmless? Then why have DUI’s gone up in Colorado exponentially since its legalization? Have you considered the safety concerns of a construction worker coming to work even partially high & operating heavy machinery when considering there are varying levels of being high that are acceptable? And you still haven’t addressed my point that regarding second hand highs that DO result from that product versus the statistics you keep harping on regarding the dangers of smoking that constantly infer second hand (and supposedly now THIRD hand) smoke harms others with using flimsy results. Nice job debating with facts for 2 minutes and then falling into the typical trap of name calling when those fall apart on you, though. Shows who the truly tolerant one is when they’re proven wrong using flimsy data for their points that don’t address reality. Duck Dynasty indeed.

          • Craig Patterson

            DUI’s have gone up because the police want $$. Studies show driving under the influence of pot does not affect driving. Pot can stay in your system for months… so you can smoke yesterday… sleep, and then drive to work… and get a DUI because of the THC still in your mouth/system. I know doctors, laywers, teachers, computer techs, DELIVERY DRIVERS that all smoke, and none have been in an accident EVER. Prove me wrong. Show me where pot is harmful. Cite MEDICAL/UNIVERSITY studies… not something that the government tells you. You are just another sheep in the flock.

            Truths:

            Pot has never killed anyone.

            Pot helps clean out your lungs.

            Pot smokers have a larger lung capacity.

            Pot cures many ailments.

            Pot does not affect driving

            80%+ of DUI’s for pot also include alcohol.

            You can fail a DUI test days/weeks after last smoking.

            Pot smokers reflexes are MUCH faster than someone drinking. (I’ve seen someone play guitar hero on expert after smoking, and he did better than anyone else playing)

            There is no risk of second hand smoke from pot.

            No risk of heart disease or lung cancer from pot.

            No additives added to pot (until the Government takes control and allows Marlboro and other companies to add what they want into it)

            I can go on and on…

            So…. how have you proven me wrong just by disagreeing with me?

          • Craig Patterson

            Pot has never killed anyone… directly… or indirectly. Period.

          • Craig Patterson

            Ok genius… show me a scientific or medical journal or a study showing negative effects of pot? If you come back with something written by the government, I’m going to laugh at you. When you can’t find one, you will realize that there *can* be no negative effect of second hand exposure… since first hand exposure is harmless.

            The only negative study you will find involves brain development of children. Pot should not be in the hands of anyone under 21… unless its medically necessary for the child.

            And I never said I, or anyone else, handled equipment drinking… but I know people that smoke pot that do. I even know police officers that smoke. *lol*

            Again, you are an ignorant fool. Depending on body mass, thc can stay in your system for months. Also… it can stay in your mouth for up to a week (if the person doesn’t brush their teeth regularly) but being high typically only last 15 minutes to a couple hours at most. Pot smokers are no more likely to get in an accident than a non pot smoker.

            Go educate yourself before you spew bullshit from your mouth.

          • brewers_rule

            “There is no risk of second hand smoke from pot.”
            REALLY? Then where did that term contact high come from smart ass? You’re telling me there’s ZERO danger in my kids being around people smoking in confined areas? Until you answer that, your argument’s baseless.
            All the data you’re asking from me while you claim to have it all yet supposedly defending YOUR viewpoints with baseless claims like “pot does not affect driving” and “I know lots of people that…” are pathetic. The idea you’re handling moving equipment impaired while drinking but not high is somehow different is completely and totally laughable when you yourself say the stuff stays in your system a long time, thus AFFECTING YOU FOR A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME DOING EVERYTHING.
            Try again some other time, man.

          • Craig Patterson

            bullshit… period. Most of my friends that grew up with parents that smoked had asthma or allergies. Both my parents smoked and both my brother and I have allergies. Not to mention I’ve had inflamation issues most of my life. What ass hole you pulled that BS from is beyond me. I’m not going to tell anyone they can’t smoke…cause I was a smoker (still vape) but your post here is all bullshit.

          • brewers_rule

            Yeah, why DON’T we start with alcohol as well? Oh wait, we already DID that in the 20′s and it created a massive black market filled with gang violence.

            So you want the government to be the gatekeeper on what “filthy habits” people choose to take part in? Where exactly does that road lead to and end at for you? You see no problem with the government censoring your actions and freedoms of choice in the United State of America to save the roughly 1 in 5 people who smoke since 2000? 80% of the population gets to live under more state controls due to the 20%, is that it? Sounds free to me.

            “..name me a teenager who listens to their parent 100% of the time?” Really? That’s your excuse for letting the government make moral decisions for a population under the guise of health or safety? So, if a teenager doesn’t listen to their parents the government then needs to take up the slack, is that it? Well, I guess that fits with the modern plan of government taking care of everyone’s needs in place of parents THEY view aren’t doing it properly, now doesn’t it? Gee, I wonder what kind of society that will create where the government takes care of kids from cradle to grave and the resulting dependency & unimaginable power that will bestow upon politicians and bureaucrats in the country? Exactly how is this a good thing again? Where are your numbers showing the numbers of people that have died over the ages under such massive state regimes because I can pull those out if you like. But, I’m sure that could NEVER happen in America, right? Where the EPA tells ranchers to starve their cattle for a tiny fish in California. Or the IRS is targeting groups the current political regime disagrees with? Or the NSA can listen to anyone at any time it chooses to, potentially digging up dirt on more political enemies depending on the regime in control of it? Nah, all it is is a little smoking ban here, sugary drink ban there (NY), all under the protective guise of your caring government, right?
            Plain and simple: the government has no right to determine what any individual should be allowed to purchase in a free republic like ours, healthy, unhealthy, or not (and don’t tangent on the govt health care costs of foolish choices because those choices also come with consequences individuals also have the right to live through without taxpayers paying for them). If you wanna buy something that kills you, it’s your choice, LIVE with it and stay OUT of others’ backyards by depending on government to tell the rest of us how to live OUR lives. Period.

    • ThunderDragoon

      So true.

    • brewers_rule

      I wish there was a way to press like an infinite amount of times for this comment but alas, not so much. Gotta love that caring government that knows what’s best for us to the point of banning it to protect us like Nanny Bloomberg’s quest against sugary drinks in NY, right?

  • HippieOfDeath

    “Yeah, that defining trait of the character? the one that resulted in him getting terminal cancer and devising a gambit that forces no one, but two lords of hell to cure him and keep him healthy in a badass storyline? Yeah, we’re getting that out. We’ll probably replace it with a romantic subplot or something…”

    • ChildoftheKoRn

      That spoiler! Meh they probably wouldn’t have made a sequel and would have to pull a serious BS card to bring it into the show now that hes quit smoking.

  • rocker_15-c

    Wow, even the kind-of-crappy movie get that part right but for TV is too much to handle, there goes my hopes for seeing the freaking awesome arcs from the Garth Era on the comics, now I really hope that’s the only surprise they got otherwise that’s going to flop HARD.

  • http://doomas10 doomas10

    that’s just amazing. Constantine is just a badass douche who just ignores everything and everyone. The whole smoking aspect seems to be a definite trait of the character…and they take it out? Wow.. What’s next? Him falling in love and dreaming of Unicorns?

  • brewers_rule

    More pc bs. “We have to save the little chiwd-wen who may be watching this despite it being intended for ADULTS.”
    I never read the comic but did see the movie and if I recall, the smoking aspect is a HUGE reason why Constantine basically doesn’t give a sh*t about possibly dying during his exploits so if the comic also maintained that theme, then they’re screwing up the storyline. A man with nothing to live for is a much more believable bad ass hero than one that has earthly things to cling to.