Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Entertainment Discussions > Movie Talk
Reload this Page >

show smoke in the movies and get an R rating? Yeah, right

Movie Talk A Discussion area for everything movie related including films In The Theaters

show smoke in the movies and get an R rating? Yeah, right

Old 02-25-04, 12:14 PM
  #26  
DRG
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: ND
Posts: 13,421
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
I say they abolish the letter ratings all together and go with just the content boxes, perhaps with more detailed information or even the old rating letters by subject. For instance...

Charlies Angels: Full Throttle
Rated PG-13 for action violence, sensuality and language/innuendo.

Instead you could say
Violence/Scariness - PG (action violence)
Sensuality/Sex - PG13 (sensuality)
Language - PG13 (language/innuendo)
Drugs/Alcohol - PG
Thematic Elements - G

Or how about:

Whale Rider
Rated PG-13 for brief language and a momentary drug reference.

Could now be:
Violence/Scariness - G
Sensuality/Sex - G
Language - PG13 (brief language)
Drugs/Alcohol - PG13 (momentary drug reference)
Thematic Elements - G

Billy Elliot
Rated R for language.

Could be:

Could now be:
Violence/Scariness - G
Sensuality/Sex - G
Language - R (language)
Drugs/Alcohol - G
Thematic Elements - PG

Note: these may not be accurate representations, but I'm going by MPAA's examples.
Old 02-25-04, 12:15 PM
  #27  
Moderator
 
Groucho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 71,383
Received 117 Likes on 79 Posts
Originally posted by Inverse
And if you make every subject that *some* people considered offensive grounds for an R rating, 90% of all movies will be rated R.
That's not how it works at all. The MPAA tries to gauge what content most parents would find objectionable to show to their childen. And frankly, they do a pretty good job keeping with current trends in this area.

In America today, most people find nudity in films more offensive than violence...and the MPAA ratings reflect that. You or I might not agree with that judgement call, but that's how the majority feels right now. As times change, different levels of content get different ratings from the MPAA.
Originally posted by Binger
The problem lies in the fact that there are millions of adults that shouldn't have to live in the Wally and Beaver world that the soccer moms want. I've been through my childhood and I have the right to view any content that I wish. Studios and theater owners will take a considerable hit if 2/3s of movies were rated R. This will result in less adult oriented content.
The reality is that most films, including R-rated films, are aimed at young people. This was even more true in the 1980's when nearly every high-school film for teens was rated R. I recently watched Cherry Falls, a film that had to be heavily cut to even get an R. Adult-oriented? Hardly. It was easily one of the most juvenile films I've seen in the last five years.

True adult-oriented films (such as Lost in Translation or American Splendor are very rarely cut to get a PG-13, since the studios know young people aren't going to see them anyway. They are unaffected by the MPAA ratings. Another recent example is The Dreamers, which was released with an NC-17.
Old 02-25-04, 12:37 PM
  #28  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Formerly known as Groucho AND Bandoman/Death Moans, Iowa
Posts: 18,069
Received 291 Likes on 207 Posts
I'm against smoking, but in the movies it looks cool.

That's a simplification, but I agree with what Roger Ebert said about smoking on the Casablanca audio commentary. Smoking can be used for great theatrical effect. If a drama about a grandfather who dies of lung cancer or a film set in the 40s would now be rated R, simply because of smoking, that would be pretty stupid.
Old 02-25-04, 01:12 PM
  #29  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
Michael Corvin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 61,750
Received 648 Likes on 454 Posts
I say we leave hollywood alone and eliminate the problem at the source. No person under 21 admitted to movies period. There would be a 98% drop in cell phone usage during the movie. 88% drop in conversations during the movie. etc.

Talk about ejoying a movie.
Old 02-25-04, 01:25 PM
  #30  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Lincolnwood, Illinois
Posts: 1,504
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally posted by ToddSm66


SMOKE!
Awesome.

If teens or the underaged are shown smoking, it should definitely warrant a PG-13 or an R depending on the circumstances.
Old 02-25-04, 02:22 PM
  #31  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Formerly known as "brizz"/kck
Posts: 23,427
Received 6 Likes on 2 Posts
how on earth did this get to the second page without a link to the infamous rabidly anti-smoking imdb commando threads
Old 02-25-04, 03:24 PM
  #32  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 4,551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Michael Corvin
I say we leave hollywood alone and eliminate the problem at the source. No person under 21 admitted to movies period. There would be a 98% drop in cell phone usage during the movie. 88% drop in conversations during the movie. etc.

Talk about ejoying a movie.
Ha, that'd be great except Hollywood would probably stop making movies because they'd go out of business. I think that would suck more than some cell phones.

Anyway, I don't mind a tobacco warning being labeled on a film. But the conceit that a film should be rated R for smoking is so idiotic it offends me. Here is an action, seen readily on television, on the street, everywhere. A legal action that I support the right for people to do. To say that a film is now restricted to tthose who are 17 or accompanied by 17 or older is inane. Nudity, violence, drug use...these are things you DON'T see everyday on the street. Grouping smoking with that, well, I sympathize with the purpose, but not the plan.

The MPAA has its problems, mostly with a higher adult rating. But in the end the organization does its job, with a certain amount of political favoritism but nonetheless, it is still somewhat effective. But imagine the day when 101 Dalmations is now...R rated.
Old 02-25-04, 03:50 PM
  #33  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Dimension X's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The unknown world of the future
Posts: 5,149
Received 217 Likes on 133 Posts
Originally posted by brizz
how on earth did this get to the second page without a link to the infamous rabidly anti-smoking imdb commando threads
Those threads weren't archived.
Old 02-25-04, 04:25 PM
  #34  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Groucho, you're agreeing with me: the MPAA's job is to award ratings based on what MOST people find objectionable. What I was saying was that, while you can easily find a few people who are offended by anything under the sun (including violence), nobody here has shown that MOST people think showing one person smoking a cigarette should warrant an automatic R.

Again, the point I was making was that if the MPAA were to base its ratings on what *every* small group thinks, then almost all films would be rated R. And that is neither sensible nor economically viable.
Old 02-25-04, 05:56 PM
  #35  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: City of the lakers.. riots.. and drug dealing cops.. los(t) Angel(e)s. ca.
Posts: 54,199
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
The few being offended in this case is the Majority. Majority rule. get over it.

I will go out and say that by having the real cool hip actor smoke on screen as he kills the baddies, it does send a wrong message that might be picked up by the youth that it is hip to smoke. Much like how we got rid of Joe Camel because he was a cartoon character that smoked, this is a means to target childern. Marketing it like this and not allowing the companies to market it to kids in there own way is a sort of a double standard. Atleast we should treat it as such. By making it Rated R and having it listed for the simple reason why "Tobacco use" then a parent can make the choice or talk to there kid about it.

This isn't the case of a small group. this is the objections of a fairly large group. I'm sure you can find groups who don't mind nudity and the such, but the general public does not want kids smoking and if the film is simply promoting such activities then perhaps a simple warning can do. Are you over the age of 17? If so then why do you care? Maybe a new rating should be listed. Simply put a parent is going to take their kids to whatever they want. Is a warning so much to ask to atleast keep the parents informed on what the content is?
Old 02-25-04, 08:09 PM
  #36  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Relocated to Bot-Hell
Posts: 11,315
Received 146 Likes on 107 Posts
Let's see.......
Rated (R) for smoking.
Rated (PG) or (PG-13) for violence, death, and graphic chicken scenes

Gotta love Hollywood.
And to think, I may be moving there in the next couple of months.
Old 02-25-04, 09:28 PM
  #37  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 4,551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Jackskeleton
The few being offended in this case is the Majority. Majority rule. get over it.

You honestly believe the majority thinks that smoking should warrant an R rating? I fully support the notion that smoking should warrant a tag stating "rated PG for smoking" or whatever. But an R rating is flat out stupid. The point of the R rating is to prevent children from seeing said content without the approval and guidance of a guardian. Considering that you can see smoking EVERYWHERE, what exactly makes this material something that a 13 year old needs a parent to see?

Granted I suppose the argument would be that cursing could be a comparable item to that...you can hear that anywhere as much as you will see smoking. But I'll be honest...people might try and refrain from cursing in front of children, but I doubt most people try to not smoke when children might see them. It's an unhealthy habit that people have the right to do when they want to. I know some feel smoking should be regulated similar to alcohol, only inside where no one can see them. I personally...don't agree with that, so you can tell where my perspective comes from.

Again, the MPAA SHOULD put warnings that tell parents that tobacco use exists in films. But they shouldn't make that an automatic R rating.
Old 02-25-04, 10:27 PM
  #38  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: City of the lakers.. riots.. and drug dealing cops.. los(t) Angel(e)s. ca.
Posts: 54,199
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I can honestly say that the majority would not want cig's and smoking targetted to a young audiance. If the film is pretty much placing a smokers brand as a product placement or highlighting smoking as a positive then Yes.. I would think the Majority would support the movement.

The point of the R rating is to prevent children from seeing said content without the approval and guidance of a guardian.
Can you honestly say that if you asked a parent: "If a film is making smoking look appealing, would you want your son or daughter to see it?" that they would say "Yes, I would have no problem with them watching it without my understanding that it is going on without my knowledge"

Now, that is not to say that I believe that any single view of someone smoking should automaticlly warrent an R off the bat. I think it's more along the lines of something that should be placed on the disclaimer.

It's an unhealthy habit that people have the right to do when they want to.
Yes, but that is the choice of someone who is of legal age to smoke. If a film is marketing itself to childern and has the adult content.. why shouldn't it have an adult warning on it?

I'll agree with you to this point.
Again, the MPAA SHOULD put warnings that tell parents that tobacco use exists in films. But they shouldn't make that an automatic R rating.
I dont think I ever went that hardcore about it. I'm just saying that it should be a factor in the ratings. Smoking/drinking, I see no reason why to warn parents. and that's not to say that it is a given if it does have a shot of it. Some PG-13 films have a tit in them. You don't see me getting bitchy about it. Why? cause it's done in a non sexual manner or done for art and with taste. Why not do the same for this? If it's just smoking for the hell of it and/or marketing towards a younger crowd then yes... it should be considered in the rating.
Old 02-25-04, 10:43 PM
  #39  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: City of the lakers.. riots.. and drug dealing cops.. los(t) Angel(e)s. ca.
Posts: 54,199
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally posted by rexinnih
Let's see.......
Rated (R) for smoking.
Rated (PG) or (PG-13) for violence, death, and graphic chicken scenes

Gotta love Hollywood.
And to think, I may be moving there in the next couple of months.
Again, it's about the use of said content in context. Show a teenager smoking and stamp that one an R I say.
Old 02-25-04, 11:35 PM
  #40  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 4,551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Jackskeleton

I'll agree with you to this point.


I dont think I ever went that hardcore about it. I'm just saying that it should be a factor in the ratings. Smoking/drinking, I see no reason why to warn parents. and that's not to say that it is a given if it does have a shot of it. Some PG-13 films have a tit in them. You don't see me getting bitchy about it. Why? cause it's done in a non sexual manner or done for art and with taste. Why not do the same for this? If it's just smoking for the hell of it and/or marketing towards a younger crowd then yes... it should be considered in the rating.
Well I think we are then, in fact, agreeing on this point. Tobacco should carry with it a warning. It is an adult product, restricted from youths for purchase. I just find the idea abhorent of the automatic R. And truthfully speaking, smoking in pg-13, pg and g movies isn't that prevalent as many would like to make out. Yes it definately exists, but honestly it can be found mostly in R rated films, and films that use it more in context than as an advertisement. Honestly I can't think of one film in this day and age that has smoking in it as a product placement, at least not a pg-13 one. In general Hollywood is very good about it. Let's just look at last year's movies that featured smoking...sticking with non R films..

Hulk-no
POTC-not that I can remember
Tomb Raider-nope
X2-just wolverine but...that's his character and in no way would i say that makes the film deserving of an R rating
finding nemo-nope
return of the king-yup, damn pipe weed...not really all too objectionable
charlie's angel's-only the bad guy as far as i remember it, not really an endorsement is it?

Ok, I won't do this all day. But let's be honest...I think there is far less of a problem than many would like to make out. Yes, some movies do make smoking look cool. But let's be real...most of those films are R rated to begin with i.e. Pulp Fiction etc and those movies portray folks who, quite frankly, would smoke. Let's take it a step further...name me one movie that glamorizes smoking in an unrealistic manner and isn't rated R? And let's stick with recent movies, say last 5-10 years. The trend against cigerettes has changed Hollywood, and this whining about it is nonsensical and seems like more of a move to prevent movies from having ANY smoking at all. I really don't think there's a problem at the moment period.
Old 02-26-04, 06:21 AM
  #41  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 23,466
Received 8 Likes on 1 Post
It used to be that all movies featured smoking... usually because the actor smoked and felt natural doing it and so did his 'character'. These days, it's more of an artistic choice and it's more deliberate or else a plot devise or a way to define a character or scene. I don't think smoking should earn an R rating. Not until smoking is turned into an illegal drug and not just an age restricted one. I saw an episode of the Cosby Show the other day that featured young Vanessa at age 13 or 15 or whatever getting drunk at her friend's house. Children consuming alcohol on one of the most wholesome family television shows ever created. Maybe they should change the rating for that show to TVMA.

Really, I don't care what ratings a movie is cuz I'm old enough to see whatever I want... but I think it's bad for movies in general to place more restrictions on ratings because studios try to keep movies pg-13 and under in order to have the widest audience usually... we need to be loosening up as a society rather than getting more intense and anal and strict about stuff. Some of you do make valid points though... like the idea that the ratings reflect societal views... I also think they can help shape them. i think it's a marriage of the two - each shaping the other. Kinda like the art imitates life imitates art or whatevah.
Old 02-26-04, 09:58 AM
  #42  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Formerly known as "brizz"/kck
Posts: 23,427
Received 6 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally posted by Jackskeleton
Again, it's about the use of said content in context. Show a teenager smoking and stamp that one an R I say.
wow. Just....wow.

because, yeah, no teenage has every smoked, and if they saw another one smoking, they'd immediately go out and buy some what an appallingly hypervigilant view of things that is....The MPAA just needs to go away period, not get even more stringent in their "parenting" and serving as morality police.

here's a newsflash: people smoke, and people will continue to smoke no matter how much you, the MPAA, or clear channel try to "protect" us from it and other evils....

meanwhile....violence is still OK!!! Go blow some shit up and shoot people....that's cool!!!
Old 02-26-04, 12:08 PM
  #43  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Santa Clarita, CA
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Groucho... I actually started howling with laughter when I saw your post with Jim Carrey's picture from "The Mask"...

Awesome, just freaking awesome !

Old 02-26-04, 12:23 PM
  #44  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Welcome to the new fascist state.

Give me a break, you gonna rate a movie R based on drinking Alcohol too?

Unhealthy? Yes, I doubt there is anybody above the age of 3 that does not know it is bad for your health. Would seeing someone smoke on screen make you wanna start? Really doubt it, if so you are just WAY TOO IMPRESSIONABLE. If they are that impressionable, then dont worry about smoking, cause I'm sure they will be into the Harder drugs as soon as they watch a Cheech and Chong movie on Comedy Central. or alcoholics when they watch those beer commercials during halftime. Does that mean they should Rate sports games TV-17 because they have ads for alcohol? And forget letting your kids read a magazine, or god forbid, walk outside their house on the street, cause who knows what they might see!!

Keep the warning labels on the products, not on the movies.
Old 02-26-04, 12:41 PM
  #45  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: City of the lakers.. riots.. and drug dealing cops.. los(t) Angel(e)s. ca.
Posts: 54,199
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
You don't allow a cig company to market to kids on billboards, buses, magazines.. why not care when it's being marketed towards kids in the theater? I'm not saying kids should be sheltered. but if you are going to go out of your way to rate a film, you might as well provide the best discription of what material might be offensive or should be warned about. I just think that smoking is on the list of things that should be taken into account? Am I against smoking in general? No. I have smoked plenty of times. but you might aswell go full tilt and add it to the list. May I also suggest car chases to add in it. I mean if you want to go on the level to add Drug use in a film with drugs that aren't harmful like pot.. might aswell warn about those that actually are.. like smoking tobacco.

Agree, disagree. Whatever. it makes for a good discussion if you are open enough to talk about it. For the most part this is something that is going on in this day and age and will be a hot topic since there is a push for it. I say why not make the ratings more discriptive. I would personally take a minor to see a film rated R for smoking. if that's all that is based on the R why not. I was always up for more discription then just a blank statement of PG, G, PG-13 and R. this way parents can actually make a good choice on what they will take their kids to watch and not have to search online for why it's rated that way.
Old 02-26-04, 12:44 PM
  #46  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"The few being offended in this case is the Majority. Majority rule. get over it."

There hasn't been a shred of evidence put forward in this thread to suggest that the majority of people think showing smoking warrants an R rating--none at all. And since the MPAA is sensitive to this sort of thing, as Groucho suggested, the fact that it hasn't happened yet tends suggests that most people don't feel all that strongly on the subject.

So please go find some facts to support your claims before you start spouting off about "Majority rule, get over it."

By the way, I'm pretty sure that showing under-16s smoking already *does* factor into a movie's rating, since it shows them engaging in an illegal act. It just doesn't automatically make the movie an R.
Old 02-26-04, 12:56 PM
  #47  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just want to add this...


smoking anything is harmful, tobacco, pot, crack, whatever...

anything that is burned and inhaled has carbon monoxide, and is therefore hazardous to ones health. so the myth that pot is harmless is just that, a myth. Do I care if someone uses it recreationally, not really, could care less, though I have to admit I hate smelling it when I go to concerts, but I fully expect it to be there. Nor do I go crazy and get upset when someone smokes. Well, where was I, slightly off topic.

I just dont think people need so much shielding from the real world. Personally, I dont have the statistics, but I think in some ways, drinking is just as harmful as smoking. If I were a parent would I get upset because one of the characters drank a beer in a movie, of course not.
Old 02-26-04, 01:02 PM
  #48  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: City of the lakers.. riots.. and drug dealing cops.. los(t) Angel(e)s. ca.
Posts: 54,199
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
But there is evidence that people don't want tobacco marketed to the youth. There is little evidence to show that TV/Video game violence actually increases the amount of Violence in the world, yet we rate that.

What's the difference? If anything, like I said, this just adds another tag to parents to let them know the contents of said film. I would be surprised if parents know why something is rated the way it is other then just having the basics that "R is bad" "PG-13 is something I need to look into" and "PG or G is all good."

I'm in favor for more discriptive reasons and making them stand out to why a film is rated the way it is. Perhaps people would be more willing to see an R rated film if they knew it was just because it had someone smoking Tobacco in it. I'm sure some can view it as a shocking abuse of power but then again Who cares if a film is rated R if you are already of legal age to view it? Hasn't stopped me from seeing a G film just because it's suitable for all audiance and the general idea is that G is only for kids and wimps. and I'm sure not a wimp so don't catch me watching the film.

Find facts? how about you find me some facts that show parents don't care if kids are marketed tobacco products? see, It appears we have a little conundrum with the "Go find facts/%/stats" stand off. The MPAA and the standards and practices of all broadcast and film companies right now is under extreme watch ever since Jacksons public flashing. Jaws was rated PG-13, this was a time when R wasn't around. Should they have said that since it hasn't been done before why do it now? No. As the publics awareness and the level of Sensitization continues to grow or shrink (whatever way you look at it) the ratings of said system also has to meet it. At one time it was alright for Tobacco companies to advertise on magazines, billboards, etc. Now it's deemed as wrong practices. Should the standards and practices always be the same? No. they change as time goes by and I think if anything a more discriptive rating system that factors everything should be put in. Should it include smoking. yes, why not if smoking is targeted or marketed towards the youth, why wouldn't you regulate that in some shape or form?

Are you picking up what I'm putting down?
Old 02-26-04, 01:08 PM
  #49  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: City of the lakers.. riots.. and drug dealing cops.. los(t) Angel(e)s. ca.
Posts: 54,199
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally posted by rushmore223

I just dont think people need so much shielding from the real world. Personally, I dont have the statistics, but I think in some ways, drinking is just as harmful as smoking. If I were a parent would I get upset because one of the characters drank a beer in a movie, of course not.
I don't think we should censor said material. That would be shielding. I'm more inclined to think that at the very least a warning or discriptive tag to why a film is rated the way it is should be in order. I would add drinking to the list also. Make it a nice little paragraph long on why the film is rated the way it is and make it so that the generally stupid can realize it. This is why Rated R films don't generally do as well as said a PG-13. Because you have those uneducated parents that blindly see R films as something that is just totally bad for their childern when the material might not be bad at all. Hell a 2 minute conversation with the kid would be enough to explain what happened in the film and why. You educate the viewers with why a film is rated the way it is fully and discriptive. Not just "Rated R for some language and violence" for a film that might have a few SHIT and a car hitting someone by accident. Maybe then you will get more of a box office take for R films. which will then intern allow studios to not be so scared to release it rated R.
Old 02-26-04, 01:11 PM
  #50  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Empok Nor
Posts: 1,796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Honey I Shrunk The Kids would be R-rated because the neighbor father keeps going in the backyard for a smoke. Or maybe since the cigarette hurts the kids it should be NC-17??

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.