I am not a smoker, but this is ridiculous

[question everything]

what if a movie is made about an era when smoking was considered glamorous?

crazy

http://www.sfvbj.com/industry_article.asp?aID=79767728.1507174.1472757.7472306.7901495.601&aID2=113280

5/11/2007

Smoking Added as Criteria for Film Ratings

The glamorizing of smoking will now be considered when a rating is given to feature films, the Motion Picture Association of America announced.

The Encino-based association said that a film may receive a higher rating if it depicts a glamorization of smoking or features pervasive smoking outside of an historic or other mitigating context.

The association made the move to evolve its rating classification system and because smoking is an increasingly unacceptable behavior in American society, said its Chairman and CEO Dan Glickman.

“There is a broad awareness of smoking as a unique public health concern due to nicotine’s highly addictive nature,” Glickman said. “No parent wants their child to take up the habit.”

(snip)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. I think we need to get rid of the MPAA.

They're useless.

[wicket]

13. Amen to that

n/t

[blondeatlast]

25. Absolutely. nt

[Bitwit1234]

2. If you read on you will see

that they said that if the smoking was something that was a part of the movie it could be allowed. So that probably covers what you mentioned.

[in_cog_ni_to]

3. My non-smoking frind said the same thing today. I'm a smoker and think the anti-smokers

are going to get theirs someday. I just hope someone's left to defend them after everyone's rights are taken away. THIS IS STUPID.

[mimitabby]

4. i don't agree

Vulnerable children are influenced by what they see on the big screen.
I have attended movies myself and was dismayed at the shameless portrayal of
smoking as sexy, desireable, attractive.

I'm glad to hear it.

[MadBadger]

7. As I have heard George Carlin say, Why is it always about the children?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. Because they haven't got a good argument.

So they appeal to emotions.

[Deep13]

21. See #17

Beyond that and for the anti-smoking point of view generally, my argument is based on the half million corpses smoking produces in this country every year. Check the CDC if you doubt it. Compare that to shooting deaths, auto fatalities or any other preventable cause of mass fatalities and you see smoking is the granddaddy of them all. WE CANNOT REFORM THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM UNTIL WE CONTROL THE CAUSES OF DISEASE.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

27. Nobody ever died...

from watching a guy smoke a cigarette in a movie.

[iverglas]

40. and aren't we having lovely weather today?

What reason is there for going to the whole effort of composing a post that doesn't respond to anything said in the post being replied to?

Hmm.

[Deep13]

55. And of course no kid is influenced by anything else.

I'm sorry, but for a smart person, that is a pretty silly thing to say. Obviously it is one influence among many and something does not have to be fatal to be harmful.

Yah know what? I'm done with this subject. I'm going back to the lounge.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

57. Heh.

"I'm sorry, but for a smart person, that is a pretty silly thing to say."

"my argument is based on the half million corpses smoking produces in this country every year."

[Deep13]

17. Children develop norms based on what they see and hear.

If they see a lot of violence, even if it is fictional, then they will be desensitized to it and think it is normal. That is how the child mind works. It is a computer waiting to be programmed and that programming is based on what they see and hear. The Jesuits say, give them to us when they are young and we have them for life. Children from smoking households are far more likely to smoke themselves than children from nonsmoking households. Maybe some of you would not be tobacco addiction slaves right now if you were not taught that it is cool when you were small.

NO ONE is advocating that adults should be prevented from seeing smoking, sex, violence or Republicans on film.

[azurnoir]

41. No one is taught smoking is cool

and BTW my SO is from a nonsmoking house hold his parents are both nonsmokers but he and his siblings all smoke.

[Deep13]

49. Sorry, the media does teach them that...

...and it is a lesson they infer from peers and older relatives. Individual anecdotes prove nothing, of course. I'm from a smoking household and have never done so. My sister did and smoked long after our parents quit. I'm surprised how often I have to remind people that individual experience does not negate the findings of mass studies. I get the feeling that most people even on this pretty well educated web-site don't know how science works.

Look, that's my view. I think it is a reasonable one and I really don't feel like arguing it further.

[spacelady]

115. Perhaps if one has progressed beyond the mind of a child

One could see shades of grey.

[spacelady]

114. And if they see Superman jump off a building and fly..............

Well you get the picture.

[Toots]

130. So why do you think people ingest a deadly poison that doesn't even get them high?

Explain to me how smart you all are...please...There are many deadly carcinogens in cigarettes which no one denies. Why would a rational human being decide to stick burning leaves in their mouth and inhale a smoke they know is deadly, especially when it doesn't even get them high? I am sure they just thought of it all on their own simultaneously throughout the world without anyone or anything influencing them...Sometimes I really wonder at the intelligence factor on these boards...

[iverglas]

23. well, just a question

Who else is affected by movie ratings?

I know I'm not ...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

30. The studios, the artists, and the audience.

Some prude sitting in an office decides she doesn't like something she sees in a movie, so it gets a harsher rating, the studio loses a few million dollars, the artist doesn't get his work shown, and the audience gets cheated because next time the studio censors the work.

Censorship hurts everybody.

[iverglas]

39. uh huh

So children are prevented from seeing a movie because it glamourizes smoking.

Such an easy fix for that ... but oh! that would cheat some audience out of seeing smoking glamourized.

I haven't seen an otherwise non-R-rated movie lately that glamourized smoking. Is there actually subject matter here?

[gollygee]

47. Kids' movies that have smoking in them

Every time we see a kids' movie where a character is smoking, my 5-year-old daughter comments on it. I don't think movies for adults are the targets, and I could really care less if there's smoking in them. But I won't cry if movies made for kids don't have smoking in them.

Anyway, movies where I've seen it off the top of my head

Pinnochio
Alice in Wonderland
The Three Caballeros
Mary Poppins
The Tigger Movie (which is a pretty new one)

[Clark2008]

68. Old people smoking pipes.

PIPES, not cigarettes, which is what we're discussing.

Oh - and the people smoking in those movies? Old people and bad guys. No kids.

[gollygee]

87. Pinocchio and Peter Pan both smoke

they aren't old. And some smoke pipes, some cigars. I don't remember if any were cigarettes. In Alice in Wonderland it's a hookah. Is the ratings issue just cigarettes or any tobacco product?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

92. Yeah, Pinocchio turns into a donkey for it.

I don't remember what happened to Peter Pan, but it certainly fits his troublemaking nature, and the Caterpillar was smoking reefer.

What else shall we complain about? How Bart Simpson is an underacheiver and proud of it?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

50. The ratings system started as a tool for lazy parents.

Parents used to drop their kids off with a few bucks at Saturday matinees, and the theater happened to be showing Night of the Living Dead, or whatever. Then the parents decided they needed to know if the movie they were babysitting their kids with was appropriate, so they created a ratings system.

Now the rating system is telling the movie makers what they should, and shouldn't put in the movies. It's evolved into a sort of soft censorship.

Frankly, if I want to have a movie where Dakota Fanning does nothing but chain smoke a pack of Parliaments for twenty minutes, and then looks at the camera and says ",hey, kids, smoking is cool, and it's good for you," then some group of MPAA jerks has no business telling my studio to tell me not to make that movie.

[iverglas]

70. ah, those damned Lazy Parents

Parents used to drop their kids off with a few bucks at Saturday matinees

Ah, I was one of those kids. In the days when parents let kids go out on their own without being chauffeured there and back in a big honking SUV for fear that someone somewhere might do them harm.

In fact, when parents made kids go out on their own, because that's really what kids need to do in order to learn a little self-reliance, and just get the hell away from the annoying grown-ups for a while (and vice versa for the grown-ups and the annoying kids).

I wonder which I think is worse: a ratings system so that kids can indeed be dropped off with a few bucks to entertain themselves in a relatively safe environment, or a world in which kids supposedly can't go anywhere without being chauffeured there and back in a big honking SUV by their very very involved parents.

I swear, Lazy Parents are responsible for all the ills in the world. Including what harm actually does come to some children as a result of their parents' laziness, children being, after all, the responsibility and concern of no one but their parents -- and the harm that such children might do to someone else being something that we need only blame their parents for, while punishing the children, and not give a thought to trying to prevent.

Frankly, if I want to have a movie where Dakota Fanning does nothing but chain smoke a pack of Parliaments for twenty minutes, and then looks at the camera and says ",hey, kids, smoking is cool, and it's good for you," then some group of MPAA jerks has no business telling my studio to tell me not to make that movie.

Frankly, I can't imagine why you're spewing this noise here instead of somewhere where it might fit in a little better with the prevailing philosophy.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

79. heh

"I wonder which I think is worse: a ratings system so that kids can indeed be dropped off with a few bucks to entertain themselves in a relatively safe environment, or a world in which kids supposedly can't go anywhere without being chauffeured there and back in a big honking SUV by their very very involved parents."

How about just a world where adults take responsibility for their kids. You know, actually look up a movie before having them see it.

"Frankly, I can't imagine why you're spewing this noise here instead of somewhere where it might fit in a little better with the prevailing philosophy."

Perhaps you'd be more comfortable in a place where more people want the MPAA to give harsher ratings to movies with smoking? Maybe Jack Thompson and Joe Lieberman and The Church Lady have some little gated community wherein everything is closely monitored for your consumption.

[iverglas]

86. ah yes, how 'bout paradise?

How about just a world where adults take responsibility for their kids.

Or get ... thrown in jail, put in stocks in the market place, fined half their annual income ... WHAT??? ... if they don't?

More to the point you so dearly want to evade: what about the kids whose parents don't? What about the other people affected by what those kids do?

Got a problem? Never mind trying to solve it. BLAME SOMEONE FOR IT. That'll make ya fell all warm and fuzzy, without having to actually do anything at all.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

91. Well then the kids whose parents don't take responsibility...

might end up being naughty and watch inappropriate movies.

So what.

"Got a problem? Never mind trying to solve it. BLAME SOMEONE FOR IT. That'll make ya fell all warm and fuzzy, without having to actually do anything at all."

I haven't got a problem. Smoking movies is not a problem.

Now if you've a problem with kids seeing inappropriate movies, then scold your kids.

[madeline_con]

117. Thank you!

I don't want some snot-nosed brat to be the standard by which everything I do, say, see, read and hear is based!!

[sarge43]

37. And what G rated contemporary film was that?

If you're referring to films made before, say, the 80's, then yes. Even films made now about the past are unrealistic about smoking. Band of Brothers comes to mind. None of the soldiers were shown smoking - screwing and swearing and suffering, but not smoking. Believe me, back then they smoked like furnaces. Cigarettes were passed out to the troops for free.

Seems to me that any child old enough to watch a PG rated, let alone an R, film would be old enough to understand the difference between a film narrative and real world. And a parent would have the responsibility to explain the difference.

[Clark2008]

69. Amen, Sarge.

[Clark2008]

67. First, I rarely, if ever, see anyone smoking in a movie suitable for kids -

unless it's the "bad guy."

Most of the movies where a character is smoking are movies I wouldn't allow my child to see.

I think this is a bunch of hooey.

[question everything]

108. Parents, not movies, need to instill values in their children

and why only smoking? I think that movies that show smart alec kids and bumbling parents should not be seen by "vulnerable children," either.

If movies are going to show real people in realistic situations, smoking may be part of the movie.

[spacelady]

116. Vulnerable children, poisoned apples, evil stepmothers

flying fairies, Elvis... Oh we are all doomed, DOOMED, I say.

[Deep13]

11. "getting theirs"

All we want is clean air. If that is what we are FINALLY getting, then it is about time. The presumption should always be in favor of health over disease. Smoking is not and never has been a right. If we could count on smokers to be considerate, legislation would not be necessary. Smokers make up a small and shrinking minority, so I doubt you will cause us to "get ours" any time. What would you do, force us to smoke? Will you only be happy while you are gasping from emphasyma if you know others are dying too? What is wrong with you?

[azurnoir]

24. So you no

hypocrisy in say not allowing smoking at an out door cafe were there are vehicles (buses) running 10 or feet away? Or a govenor saving that saves tax payer money by raping the moneys from a smoking suit for general purposes? Smokers are paying far more in hidden taxes that wind up in non-smokers pockets. I also know of cases were non-smokers have used a person smoking for getting such things as a better seatting position, mind you in a non-smoking environment ie he/she had a cigarette 4 hours ago and well the I can still smell? You are right smokers are a minority, one that non-smokers can and do use to their advantage every chance they get.

[Deep13]

53. Nope. Not if you ask who is supposedly being hypocritical...

...and what the definition of hypocrisy is. It means advocating one thing and doing another. I can't speak for the state or for MPAA, but I am not advocating restrictions on smoking while smoking myself. The fact that other pollutants exist is not a reason to tolerate this one. The taxes people pay on tobacco do not even come close to paying for the societal cost of tobacco-caused illness. I don't know what you mean about seating or whatever. Nevertheless, nothing here has anything to do with whether or not parents should be warned that a film might not be for children based on several reasons including the depiction if self-destructive habits.

Smoking is not like being Black or gay or a religious minority. If you don't want to deal with discrimination, all you have to do is not smoke or refrain for it while in public.

[jobycom]

15. Nice. Turn the thread into a personal attack on non- smokers.

Hey, I'll join in. What do you mean, when anti-smokers "get theirs?" You mean cancer, asthma, or just the minutes of intense discomfort because our right to breathe clean air is taken away so you can pay more money to some of the most manipulative human rights-violating pollution-contributing mega-corporations in the world?

There already seems to be a dearth of people sticking up for everyone's rights. The corporations pay good money to make sure we non-smokers don't have the right to breath.

[azurnoir]

32. Oh but it's OK

to have threads that attack smokers thats different right, I mean air pollution is all smokers fault corporations are supporting smokers just to make you nonsmokers miserable LOL try again. Oh and you have no right to breathe? How did you write that post?

[jobycom]

45. First, learn to punctuate. I can barely understand what you wrote.

Second, I was responding to your post, not starting a separate thread attacking smokers. Stick to the subject you started.

And third, if you are smoking, no one around you can breathe, so you are violating their right to breathe. A person's right to own a gun doesn't include the right to point it at someone and take away their right to life. In the same way, your right to the pursuit of happiness should not allow you to take away my more basic right to breathe healthy air.

As for other sources of pollution, I'll fight them when I run across them, too. Their existence doesn't justify your sins.

[azurnoir]

71. First I did not start the thread

If I smoke then it would seem there would be alot of dead people around me, and generally speaking when the self righteous can not make a point they go after spelling and punctuation even if they haven't read enough to know who started the thread.

[iverglas]

74. a point you and I seem to be alone in noting

The corporations pay good money to make sure we non-smokers don't have the right to breath.

Product placement, anyone?

It's getting tough to advertise those cigarette things, especially in ways that will attract new batches of consumers.

And again: I'm a smoker. The smoke doesn't blind me to the corporate interests that others, some of whom undoubtedly see corporate conspiracies everywhere in the world, seem to be missing.

[in_cog_ni_to]

88. You'll lose whatever right SOMEONE ELSE decides THEY don't want you to have. You're next. n/t

[gollygee]

20. How is this taking away people's rights?

it's about movie ratings.

[jebediah]

60. the ratings on depictions in movies do not affect your rights

in the least. But, insofar as it's another step in the culture against smoking I'm all for it. *I* have been injured by growing up in a smoking household. So, I already "got mine" starting when I was 15 years old.

When it comes down to your habit vs. other people's health, you will lose and I'll celebrate each step of that progress if I'm not laid up at home with another lung infection.

*You* are not the victim of anti-smokers. You're a myopic addict.

[Deep13]

5. It's just a rating.

I don't see how this is any different that having a kid see a lot of violence or pornography at a young age. If anything, the MPAA has to stop being such a pussy when it comes to industry standards. Just because Hollywood certain things are all right for children does not mean the parents will agree.

[jobycom]

6. Movies still have ratings?

:shrug:

I don't think I've ever considered a movie rating before taking my kid to see one. I wonder how relevant those ratings even are any more.

Don't get me wrong, I do monitor what they watch, I just don't use ratings systems to do it. Often, what I find offensive and what some group of film prudes do are not similar.

[shain from kane]

9. On the contrary, when I see a Camel, I want to pack up the gunboat and sail to Iraq.

Wonderful recruitment tool.

[BurtWorm]

10. I don't have a problem with it.

They're not banning smoking, just making it more difficult to glamorize it in movies children will see.

I do object to "criteria" being treated as a singular noun, however. ;)

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

12. So if this guy were still alive and making movies in Hollywood

he'd have a major element in his screen persona regulated and restricted? Well, since the modern movie industry, with very few exceptions is making nothing but mindless crap, I wouldn't want to see his new movies anyway, and I doubt Bogey would have wanted to act in anything being made nowadays.

[sandnsea]

29. If Bogey knew how many people he killed

by glamorizing cigarettes in his movies - he probably would have stopped smoking all on his own.

He's an actor. He would have figured out the parts without the cigarettes. That's what actors do.

[azurnoir]

35. I really doubt anyone

started smoking because Bogey did, that is the lamest excuse out there, do you really think people are that weak minded?? or just smokers.

[sandnsea]

63. Oh please, of course they did

I can't believe the level of denial people have - which is just as dangerous as those who do things because it looks cool in a movie.

[RC Quake]

81. I learned to smoke at 12 years old during my summer job.

I would venture to guess that detasseling corn (percentage wise) produces more children smokers than from seeing it in the movies. By the end of every summer, 90% of the kids under 18 were smoking. That's around 600,000. Cigarettes were the incentive at the end of every row. They made us work harder and faster to reach that reward.

Heck! Ban detasseling.

[azurnoir]

110. I think that's when my SO started too

really, he still shudders at the corn detasseling part it's murder on your hands I hear.

[Madspirit]

83. That IS stupid

A lot of youngsters, in fact most youngsters, start smoking because they think it's glamorous. Where do you think they got the idea? Jeez.

Denial is UGLY. This is just more of the "I'm a 'Markin and I can do whatever I want including being a big dumb jerk"...gee...so much like Bush. Americans are really really ugly ugly ugly ugly.
Lee

[azurnoir]

111. No they don't

it has been years, really decades since smoking or drinking was common on TV. Most kids start because it's forbidden and a way of torquing their parents not, glamor these days comes from TV and music video's and you pretty much never see people smoke in video's, can't do that and sing. Do you really think kids are that mindless?
To say that kids do things because they think it's glamorous or they see it on TV is a cop out for both the adult claiming that and the kid, every bit as much as violent kids are that way because of video games. However if your own denial gives you comfort more power to you, it is an way to explain very complicated issues
BTW I have 4 kids ranging in ages from 29 to 10 none of them smoke, one did for a while but she quit.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

48. It was an essential part of his persona

Personally, if some people were foolish enough to smoke because they saw Bogey smoke, I don't care about them or their lives. Everyone dies, but a screen presence like Bogey is immortal. To eliminate a cigarette from Bogey's lips would be sacrilege. Anyone who cares about movies would feel that way. At least, anyone who cares about real movies and not what passes for movie-making today.

[sandnsea]

65. because you're perfect?

If it's foolish to smoke, then why in the world would YOU glamourize Bogey for doing it? You're doing what you say it's stupid to do.

People didn't go see Bogey because he had a cigarette dangling out of his mouth. It's an insult to everything about him to imply that he wouldn't have been Bogey without the stupid cigarette.

[Madspirit]

99. It's not SOME people

It's youngsters. MOST smokers started as youngsters BECAUSE they thought it was cool. Do you know how many people die from this addiction? I'm really sorry you don't care about kids or the MILLIONS of people who die from smoking related illnesses. That's sad from someone supposedly progressive. My mom died of lung cancer. She started smoking when she was 15 because she thought it looked sophisticated. She got that idea from the Sophisticates who smoked, most of whom were in the movies. SHE WAS 15. I guess compassion really isn't part of being progressive.
Lee

[iverglas]

43. and he died of lung cancer, for the love of all things unholy

-- as have scads of other actors from the day.

I wonder whether he might rather that smoking hadn't been glamourized in the movies or anywhere else.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

59. I'm glad I lived in those times

People didn't try to regulate everything for the good of the children. Today, Bogey wouldn't be able to drink glass after glass the way he did in the old days without receiving a restrictive rating because it wouldn't be good for the children. He couldn't carry a gun and kill people because it would set a bad example and because all guns are evil. He couldn't smoke and he couldn't slap a woman in the face when she deserved it for doing something bad.

I'm glad I lived in the older days. I'm happy I won't be living in the news days for very much longer when everything has to be regulated and freedom and individuality count for nothing. And I'm sure glad I'm not a young person today who can't be allowed to see anything for my own good.

[iverglas]

64. I'm glad you did too

That way, someone who says things like

he couldn't slap a woman in the face when she deserved it for doing something bad.

might not be messing up the landscape for too much longer.

I lived in the old days too -- not that I claim to have seen Casablanca on its original release. Somehow, I managed not to get stuck in them.


I'm happy I won't be living in the news days for very much longer when everything has to be regulated and freedom and individuality count for nothing.

Y'know ... we feminists are alla time told we're picking at nits ... but danged if I can look at someone taking a proposal to rate movies in which there is glamourization of a suicidal habit (that happens to be an ENORMOUSLY PROFITABLE habit for corporations whose avenues for attracting new consumers are rapidly shrinking ... a relevant fact that has gone unnoticed here, it seems) and turning it into that big long whine without thinking of pots and kettles.

I'm a smoker, by the way.

[sandnsea]

66. Slap a woman in the face when she deserved it????

Wow. What a wild thing to say. Just wild. I hope you don't have any children.

[iverglas]

72. aw, c'mon

You just know the poster has six of 'em, and they all had lawn darts and BB guns, and played dodgeball, and threw chunks of ice at each other in the schoolyard, and they knew there was a loaded handgun in the parental nightstand for years, and they turned out just fine, because we all know there is just no reason for them not to do any of those things, and anybody who says nay is a big old nanny.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

75. I KNOW!

Humphrey Bogart? Sheesh, the guy probably likes Sean Connery too.

[sandnsea]

84. Well actually

I had 4 and they did have lawn darts (see scar on son #3's cheek) and BB guns (with supervision), and played dodgeball and threw chunks of ice at each other (although not at school because it was against the rules); and we did have rifles and they did know not to touch them - and they did turn out just fine,

and I thank whatever spirit of the universe that watches over kids that they aren't dead too!!

Just because kids sometimes do things they aren't supposed to, doesn't mean you advocate it as the adult in charge.

[Madspirit]

100. Yeah...slapping women..

That's always good. Jeez.
Lee

[panader0]

14. What about drinking or overeating?

People who are obese are just as much of a burden to the taxpayer.

[NoPasaran]

28. "Burden to the taxpayer"

Fat people are taxpayers too!

[gollygee]

33. How often is overeating glamourized in movies?

I think alcohol and drug use are already considered in ratings.

[RamboLiberal]

36. Actually it always amazed me that

characters walked away so often from uneaten meals or drinks still nearly full. But then the Lone Ranger never had to go to the bathroom either which puzzled me as a kid.

[Phredicles]

42. For that matter, I love Star Trek, but apparently in the future no one

will have to go to the bathroom, ever.

[Javaman]

58. in the future, people have hollow legs and only use the bathroom

once or twice in their lives. I find my useless time traveling facts to come in handy from time to time.

:crazy:

[MadHound]

52. Actually quite a bit

Overeating is pervasive throughout our media. Hell, there's even a competitive "sport" based on overeating.

[undeterred]

16. Glamourous is in the eye of the beholder

When I see a woman smoking, on or off the big screen, she doesn't look sexy or glamorous to me. I either think nothing of it, or else I think, she's addicted.

[NightWatcher]

18. so Cruela DeVille gets the 101 Dalmations an "R" rating?

[sandnsea]

26. Smoking won't identify the villian anymore

They'll have to think of something else for that instant visual attack. I'd think smokers would be pleased with that aspect of this otherwise ridiculous development.

[blondeatlast]

31. Well, kids can't figure out that a woman who wants to make fur coats out of puppies

is the villain without her having the cigarette holder. :eyes:

[ieoeja]

44. I own two!

Some men hunt for sport,
Others hunt for food,
The only thing I'm hunting for,
Is an outfit that looks good...

See my vest, see my vest,
Made from real gorilla chest,
Feel this sweater, there's no better,
Than authentic Irish setter.

See this hat, 'twas my cat,
My evening wear - vampire bat,
These white slippers are albino
African endangered rhino.

Grizzly bear underwear,
Turtles' necks, I've got my share,
Beret of poodle, on my noodle
It shall rest,

Try my red robin suit,
It comes one breast or two,
See my vest, see my vest,
See my vest.

Like my loafers? Former gophers -
It was that or skin my chauffeurs,
But a greyhound fur tuxedo
Would be best,

So let's prepare these dogs,
Kill two for matching clogs,
See my vest, see my vest,
Oh please, won't you see my vest.

[alcibiades_mystery]

19. What part of

"if it depicts a glamorization of smoking or features pervasive smoking outside of an historic or other mitigating context" is difficult for you to understand?

You say "what if a movie is made about an era when smoking was considered glamorous?"

Er, that would be a "historic or mitigating context," yeah?

So what's the problem?

[question everything]

119. What is an historic or mitigating context?

All the movies with Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall - would these be considered historic or mitigating context? In those days, people smoked, it was actually part of adult interaction, just as lighting a pipe would often offer an important pause.

And even today. People do smoke. Does this mean that real characters who smoke cannot be in a movie? Or are we so dumbed down that any movie with real character is not a PG anyway?

[Mind_your_head]

22. Yeah, whatever......

There are a LOT more important issues concerning people's rights being taken away than this. Keep focused on the BIG ISSUES and don't be distracted by this small stuff right now. One has to learn to do 'triage' and not waste energy that could be put to better/more fruitful use.....

ANOTHER smoking/anti-smoking flame-bait thread wastes the 'good energies' of the DU community.

Peace,
M_Y_H

[question everything]

120. I disagree. Any rights taken away are worth fighting for

who will decide which rights? And when the time come that you find some rights are worth fighting for - it will be too late.

[RamboLiberal]

34. I disagree - I don't think it is stupid

For one tobacco companies were paying for product placement and for them showing characters smoking. And from many movies I saw set in current era the characters seemed to smoke more than the same proportion of the population. And they'd also show workplace smoking i.e. offices, etc. where in most places it's been outlawed by law.

[kitkat65]

38. We're becoming a nation of pussies thanks to those groups who think

they need to protect us from ourselves. It's all about control.

[Ron Green]

54. It's partly about control, but partly about education.

Masses of people really are influenced by propaganda, and it's a good idea to promote healthier images and messages when possible.

The "nation of pussies" comment - well, I better not go there.

:)

[trumad]

80. pussies

you mean we're being femininized to the point of acting like girls? Oh the horror.

[kitkat65]

109. Actually, in a weird way you've proven my point.

Why do the politically-correct feel the need to be such dicks?

:P

On edit: Hey, I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything. I just think words are given more power than they're worth. At least in my case, when I call someone a pussy, I'm not thinking of female genitalia at all. (But for some strange reason I do when it comes to the term cunt - go figure.) Did the term of pussy for female genitalia precede the term pussy for a thin-skinned coward? If the thin-skinned coward meaning came first, then I'm really going to have to take issue when someone tries to imply that my labia is somehow timid.

And, don't even get me started on the use of pussy for cats.

[blondeatlast]

46. MPAA is a sham. any parent who relies on it is doing their child a grave misservice. nt

[RufusTFirefly]

51. I wish some movies could be rated OPP...

... for "Obnoxious Product Placement."

I rarely go to big American movies because I can't stand that they include a subtext designed to sell me stuff. A carryover from TV's "vast wasteland," it really shifted into high gear with ET and the candies he ate. Sales of that particular product reportedly went through the roof. (The most cynical recent example I can think of is "About a Boy," which ostensibly is about how community is so much more meaningful than consumerism, and yet the film is filled to the gills with "gee-whiz" gizmos from an easily recognizable gadget store.)

Most people are so accustomed to these shameless sales pitches that they no longer notice them. But these ads-within-the-movie continue to operate subliminally or they wouldn't be so lucrative. For me, it's like fingernails on a chalkboard. When I see a product placement it jerks me out of the story's fictional space and undermines the movie's overall artistic integrity. I wonder, "Did they put that product there because the writer thought it was something the character would use? Or was it because the studio inked a multi-million-dollar deal with that company?"

Remember when characters who drank beer opened cans that just said "beer" on the label?

Onscreen smoking is simply the deadliest version of an insidious feature of mainstream movies.

(This rant is brought to you by Red Apple cigarettes, filter and non.)

[Ron Green]

62. Your post ought to have its own thread.

Product placement is such an insidious blending of art and propaganda that it warrants acknowledgment and regulation, in my opinion.

[ComerPerro]

56. they do the same thing with alcohol, you know

[Odin2005]

61. I don't think it is ridiculous. I don't want to see smoking being glamorized in front of kids.

[smirkymonkey]

97. I don't want to see violence, racism or sexism glamorized in front

of kids. Do you think they'll do anything about that?

Hmmm.... I wonder?

[Celeborn Skywalker]

112. Waaah.

Oh won't someone think of the children!

[RC Quake]

73. Oliver Stone's JFK

Just wouldn't be JFK without the smoking. I think if they cut every scene with smoking in it, the movie would be about 10 minutes.

[jpgray]

76. Good Night and Good Luck would be what, then? X?

[rasputin1952]

77. So almost all of the classic's from the 30's-40's-50-'s and 60's

will suddenly be somewhere off the chart w/this?

Kind of stupid, if you ask me. Nothing like the idiocy of a zealot...:eyes:

[question everything]

121. Movies that the kids, of course, can still watch on TV at home

and just think - these were the great movies showing interactions between adults. No smart alec kids making fun of their bumbling parents, no action or computer animation. Simply intelligent, well written movies.

[rasputin1952]

124. Casablanca, Breakfast at Tiffany's, The Graduate, WC Fields

movies, a whole slew of Westerns, literally thousands of films would be affected.

But you are correct, just watch them on TCM or another channel. It is a ridiculous attempt at trying to instill a behavior, based on nothing more than a few zealots. I find it disgusting myself...:(

[msongs]

78. smokers are an enemy of the human race - toxic air pollution and global warming

included. imagine all the daily cigarettes smoked put in a huge pile and burned. it would equal what is put out by a forest fire.

you drug addict junkies are poisoning the entire earth's population. you have no "rights" to do that.

Msongs
www.msongs.com

[in_cog_ni_to]

89. Do you drive a car? If so, what kind? n/t

[etherealtruth]

106. "smokers are an enemy of the human race "

At first I thought your post was a sarcastic joke ... "smokers are an enemy of the human race." It is good to see someone with such a wealth of knowledge about addiction ... and you managed to couple it with compassion:sarcasm:

Smoking is a terrible addiction, cigarettes are a scourge ... smokers are people that made a poor choice as a young person and pay for it with a severe and persistent addiction.

Are you this compassionate toward heroin addicts? meth addicts? alcoholics?

[question everything]

122. Inconsiderate drivers who also use a cell phone

while pushing others from their lanes are the enemy of the human race.. and their behavior contribute to more death than smoking.

[trumad]

82. Thank you for not Smoking

[in_cog_ni_to]

85. WHO HERE SAW HUMPHREY BOGART OR FRANK SINATRA SMOKING IN A MOVIE

and decided that's what YOU would do too? This is just STUPID! I suppose now we'll have to scrub all the black and white classic movies of CIGARETTES? This is the most idiotic thing the anti-smokers have done to date. They will rue the day they started this because there will come a day when one of THEIR rights are taken away. You start with smokers....it will NEVER stop! YOU'RE NEXT.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

90. If One Movie With Glamorized Smoking Is More Influential Than The Parents, Then The Parents Suck.

The biggest factor in keeping kids away from smoking is the parents and their communication. If watching ONE goddamn movie that contained scenes glorifying smoking was more powerful in the life of the kid then the parents' influences, then I'd have to say that the parents themselves did a shitty job in instilling the proper message.

And that isn't mainly to put down parents or their ability to break through to their children; it's about mocking the concept that seeing one friggin movie could impact their lives as they pertain to smoking, more then the parents themselves.

This is just utterly stupid.

[blondeatlast]

94. Exactly. Both of my parents were lifelong smokers, and yet none of

us ever had any inclination to smoke.

The MPAA is a stupid and ineffective sham.

[gollygee]

95. One movie?

I don't think it's all that big a deal, but I won't mind if movies aimed at younger kids don't have smoking. But to say that it's an issue of just one movie is deliberate understatement.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

96. Yes, ONE Movie.

Only ONE movie is rated at a time. The rating applies to ONE movie. Increasing the rating for that ONE movie based on scenes within that ONE movie is putting forth a concept that a child seeing that ONE movie could be adversely affected by that ONE movie enough to warrant it.

[gollygee]

101. The ratings standard would be applied to all movies for kids

Not just one. And most kids see more than just one movie in their childhood.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

102. I Can't Possibly Make My Last Post More Clear Than I Have. If You Didn't Get It, Then I Don't Know

what to tell ya. :shrug:

[gollygee]

103. I get your point but it's a strawman argument

You say if a kid is influenced by ONE MOVIE to smoke and that influence is greater than the influence of the parents, then the parents are bad parents. Fair enough. But no one is saying that kids are influenced by one movie to smoke. They issue is that kids see this over and over again, movie after movie.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

107. You Need To Learn What A Strawman Argument Is, Cause There Was No Strawman Present.

I love when people think they're all smart by using the word but have no idea what one really is.

[Milo_Bloom]

93. More stupidity that makes us look bad!

The sooner people drop the idea that we have to protect everyone from themselves, the sooner we can move on to REAL issues and not this protectionist crap.

Reality.

People understand fiction.

People know smoking is harmful.

VIRTUALLY NO ONE STARTS SMOKING BECAUSE THEY SAW IT IN A MOVIE.


NO ONE GUNS DOWN PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY SAW IT IN A VIDEO GAME OR MOVIE.

Everytime some stupid protectionist BS comes along, it just takes on the fence liberal voters and throws them over to the GOP, because I can hear the independent eyes rolling, "there goes the looney left telling us what we can and can't do".

For a bunch of people who generally believe evolution to be fact, they sure don't trust it.

[smirkymonkey]

98. A Modest Proposal....

How about if we just ban all CHILDREN from all movies all the time for ever?

Problem solved :smoke:

[donco6]

129. YAY! I vote for this one. n/t

[camero]

104. Par for the course

Pretty soon, the only things on TV will be Pat Robertson and Bambi. Oh wait. Bambi had a friend of a different species. Nix that then.

[spacelady]

118. And all that smoke from the forest fire, which was probably

started by a CARELESS SMOKER! Bad Bambi!

[Patsy Stone]

126. There was also gun in Bambi.

Bambi's now rated X.

[Marrah_G]

105. Oh cool, we haven't had a smoking brawl in like a week....

[wtmusic]

113. This one's played out...who's up for gun control? nt

[camero]

123. Don't forget the obese brawl n/t

[wtmusic]

128. oooh, so many ways to take offense

so little time! :silly:

[Patsy Stone]

125. Will they also regulate drinking in films?

What about eating too much trans-fat?
What about saying things against the government?
What about prostitution?
Where does the censorship end?

Most movies which have a lot smoking are already R rated, so this is just more BS quacking to look like someone cares about "family values".

[question everything]

127. Does watching the character that Eddie Murphy plays -

a real fat woman - is healthy for kids to watch?