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 02-28-04, 04:23 PM
  #76  
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 will agree with that. A zero tolerance rating system is VERY bad. I'm not for that. All Violence shouldn't be rated R and for the most part it isn't. R rated violence is really limited to Realistic violence. Sci-fi violence is rarely considered an auto R unless it contains a lot of other factors pushing it for that R. Was Lord of the rings considered R when it has smoking of pipe weed? No. But should a realistic situation that can be an influence to the youth to start smoking or be marketed towards childern be considered into the final rating of a film? I say, sure why not.

You know Kaze, I like that idea. a sort of preset card that they can't hack or such. A waver that says what they should or shouldn't watch. Though you might be going to an extreme with the whole "no smoking" tagged on it.

I'm thinking that at the very least it should be noted in a more discriptive film content over view. You have the lame, vauge rating system right now where it bearly mentions the contents "Nudity, Language, adult situations". I mean come one.. What exactly does Adult Situations mean?
Old 02-28-04, 05:15 PM
  #77  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Right behind you.
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Jackskeleton
Why should the other side be any different?
Uh, because the "other side" doesn't agree with your premise that the act of smoking is in and of itself "marketing,' and so doesn't need to rely on a series of half-witted non sequiturs to make the point. What stats are you after, anyway? Howsabout these: of the roughly 99.99% of teens who have at sometime in their lifetimes seen someone smoking a cigarette, only about 10% will become smokers. Conversely, of the small percentage of teens who commit violent offenses, 99.99% have at one time or another had a soda. So clearly we need to regulate soda intake...

Or not. Because we shouldn't confuse correlation with causation -- a favorite maneuver of the studies you cite.
You are twisting or not even listening to what I said. I didn't say that once a kid watches smoking in the media they are cursed/plauged/damned forever. It is plenty of other outside factors. But why add to a list?
I could just as easily ask you why you'd single out smoking? A diet-related heart problem is a more efficient killer than lung cancer -- so why not slap an R-rating on any film that shows our hero eating a cheese steak or enjoying a hamburger? Oh, and driving above the speed limit is potentially dangerous and sets a bad example for kids...better slap an R on any film with a car chase. And so on. The point is, as you track backward from harm, you'll find any number of activities that in retrospect seem potentially harmful. Body piercing as a lead-in to Goth vampirism. Ostensible tattoos preventing future white-collar employment. Low cut jeans as an invitation to sexual assault. Where does the desire to regulate against "potential" end? And how should those desires be balanced against our freedoms?
Agree to disagree? Yes. But I made my point, I supplied my evidence to back up my statements. Just because you provide only your views doesn't mean it's correct.
Well, keep patting yourself on the back for cutting and pasting what hardly counts as disinterested "evidence," but I'm not sure what it is you think you've "proven" here. Is it that some people will emulate those they admire? Yawn. Hardly a scientific breakthrough, that observation. And hardly reason to indulge in what amounts to soft censorship.
You absolutely hate when nanny states screw up your movies? Well look, it takes two to tango. A studio could gladly release a film regardless of the shit talk going on. Infact I would say that the shit talk would really help it. There isn't any such thing as bad Press. Besides, this isn't a destruction of your freedoms. You will still be able to see the film.
Huh...?
Agree to Disagree? If you aren't going to provide anything besides your personal views to back up your statements perhaps you should just step away from thread.
Listen: your posts on this subject are barely intelligible and keep right on talking past (at great length, too) the points others here are trying to make. This is not about statistics. It's about a slippery slope. Because once you let militant special interest groups pressure an industry into allowing them to protect us from ourselves, you've opened the door to permitting the government and select NGOs to do our parenting for us -- while at the same time taking away personal autonomy and self-reliance. Just because YOU believe everyone is easily and perniciously manipulated by "marketing" doesn't make it so. Besides, there are competing tropes in the marketplace of ideas -- one of the most overdetermined of which is the anti-smoking message. Howsabout everytime you see a character in a film NOT smoking, you strike that up as one for the good guys...?

Me, I like my art to look like life, not to be sanitized by a bunch of self-important do-gooders with a trumpet and a cause. If you don't want your kids to see smokers, put their eyes out with a red-hot poker. Or better, just lecture them on the dangers of smoking. But leave the rest of us alone.

And if you don't want to answer my posts, don't. But this thread is not all about you and your wildly scattershot ramblings, so I'll continue posting here as long as I wish. After all, I'm not some cigarette smoking character you can just make disappear by fiat simply because you happen to disagree with my behavior...

Last edited by celluloidwisdom; 02-28-04 at 11:04 PM.
Old 02-28-04, 10:52 PM
  #78  
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
Uh, because the "other side" doesn't agree with your premise that the act of smoking is in and of itself "marketing,' and so doesn't need to rely on a series of half-witted non sequiturs to make the point. What stats are you after, anyway? Howsabout these: of the roughly 99.99% of teens who have at sometime in their lifetimes seen someone smoking a cigarette, only about 10% will become smokers. Conversely, of the small percentage of teens who commit violent offenses, 99.99% have at one time or another had a soda. So clearly we need to regulate soda intake...
And these are taken from what research? oh, just generalizations I see. When I made a generalization in this thread I was told not to shove my views down other peoples throats. Last I check soda doesn't cause cancer. Soda isn't illegal to minors. You are comparing apples and oranges if you are bringing Soda in this thread to relate to Smoking.

I could just as easily ask you why you'd single out smoking? A diet-related heart problem is a more efficient killer than lung cancer -- ....Blah blah blah blah blah endless ranting and raving blah blah blah blah..
I single out smoking because there is indeed already a movement to stop the marketing of tobacco use towards kids. Once there is a movement towards healthier eating towards kids perhaps, but last time I checked a Hamburger is not illegal for a minor to buy over the counter. Last time I checked you don't ask for I.D. to get a quarter pounder with cheese.

Listen: your posts on this subject are barely intelligible and keep right on talking past
Thanks. You mentioned it before but hey, why not repeat it some more. You find my post hard to read yet you still respond to them? Perhaps it would make some sense to just stop responding to my post. It seems like you enjoy to make those small jabs. If it makes you happy.

Me, I like my art to look like life, not to be sanitized by a bunch of self-important do-gooders with a trumpet and a cause. If you don't want your kids to see smokers, put their eyes out with a red-hot poker. Or better, just lecture them on the dangers of smoking. But leave the rest of us alone.
Congrats on that. I'm glad you like your art to be realistic. But as you tell me that I'm not everyone and I shouldn't speak for everyone Why not follow your own advice? Stop thinking about yourself for a second and try.. just try for a minute to think of the bigger picture. What is the purpose of the rating systems? It's a simple way for parents to judge what films they should let their kids see. If there is a way to make it more clear what the film has in it that causes it to be rated in that manner why not add it?

I have never NOT seen a film because it was rated a certain way. I'm sure you haven't either. Not unless you are a minor and mommy didn't let you see it, that is. But other than that example when has a rating stopped you from seeing something? Exactly. So if you can make it clear by adding a smoking or drinking or whatever else offensive item might be in it that a parent should know about, then why the hell not?

Is that to say that by adding that you destroy whatever creative content the film has? Hell no. I can make a funny joke without using curse words. Why is it that you have to resort to going to one extreme or crossing someone else's line of comfort to express a point or get a story told? You don't. You want to be realisitc? Hell, state law in los angeles says you can't smoke within 20 feet of a building. If a film has to be realistic then you should abid to those rules that are every changing against smoking in public.

Now lets say you make a film. Will you really bend to those rules? If you film is going to have that sort of content in it anyways I'm sure you would go for an R rating anyways. It's not about controlling what is on screen, it's about creating awareness on what is in the film to those who will see it and those will let there childern see it.

I brought up the subject about walking away because you are just doing the same thing I am. only you provide no sort of research to back up your cliams. Something that I was bitched at earlier in this thread. My links might contain some from extreme groups, but there is others in there that aren't that hard on any one side. Besides that how many others are taking up the position I am in this thread? I'm going to be the throne here simply because I'm the only one who is taking a counter to your point and trying to see this on the level of both.

Will it effect content of films in the future? I would think that it wouldn't have that much of an effect on the content of any film later on. Perhaps you just missed that point with my ramblings. If you want this to be a masterbating thread between all those who blindly think that by doing this it will destroy films, I'm sorry, but it is not going to go down like that.

Agree to disagree? What good will that do? It wont stop you from posting in this thread and it wont stop me from responding to others.
Old 02-28-04, 10:55 PM
  #79  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Right behind you.
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Okay. If you say so.

But man, when you miss the point, you really miss the point.

PS. You might want to take a closer look at this tangle of logic:
I'm glad you like your art to be realistic. But as you tell me that I'm not everyone and I shouldn't speak for everyone Why not follow your own advice? Stop thinking about yourself for a second and try.. just try for a minute to think of the bigger picture.
If I'm reading you correctly, you want me to stop thinking about myself for a moment, but then...simultaneously...er, speak only for myself? No wait, that can't be right...

Last edited by celluloidwisdom; 02-28-04 at 11:18 PM.
Old 02-28-04, 11:14 PM
  #80  
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
Sorry you missed my point. Perhaps if I filled it with explosions, nudity and finished it off with some realistic smoking then you might have gotten it.. right?

I got your point, You don't want someone telling you what you can and can not see in a film. Someone watering down whatever content a film may have because it might contain some sort of subject matter or action that is seen as something unfit to be shown on screen. I'm telling you that thinking of it in that manner is taking it to an extreme.. much like having a zero tolorance and automaticlly having smoking = an R rating. How about seeing it down the middle and not just to one extreme or the other? Then again that would take opening yourself to a new way of seeing it.

If I'm reading you correctly, you want me to stop thinking about myself for a moment and...simultaneously...er, speak only for myself? No, that can't be right...
You speak as if by adding a new advisory will destroy YOUR movie going experience and in the same tolken that the Masses think EXACTLY the same way you do. This is not the case. while the masses might on the surface assume that by changing the rating system will destroy your enjoyment of a film you fail to see the purpose of a rating system to begin with. It's not really for you. It's for parents who want to know about the possible offending subject matter of a film. Does it sometimes factor in a studios mind? Yes. but I find that those films aren't the type you would have seen anyways since they are flormula driven pictures.

P.S. by pointing out little things like that only adds to show how little of a case your views have here. I understand your view point, but I don't agree with your concerns. I suggest showing research or any article that shows that these possible new ratings will destroy your film going experience.

Last edited by Jackskeleton; 02-28-04 at 11:26 PM.
Old 02-28-04, 11:28 PM
  #81  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Right behind you.
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I got your point, You don't want someone telling you what you can and can not see in a film. Someone watering down whatever content a film may have because it might contain some sort of subject matter or action that is seen as something unfit to be shown on screen.
No, you got part of one point. The rest of my points buzzed around you for a bit, found no fertile ground upon which to land, and so flew off to find greener pastures. An R-rating for smoking is arbitrary, exclusionary, and unnecessarily punitive. And -- in addition to opening up the flood gates to other "vices" teens need to be protected from (our hero having a beer after putting out a fire, say) -- it could have a potentially chilling effect on artistic expression.

And please: that I find the arguments you've presented here remarkably unpersuasive does NOT mean that I haven't considered the issue thoroughly. YOU, however, seem to believe that anyone who doesn't agree with you must necessarily have a closed mind on this subject -- a position that strikes me as a tad bit self-aggrandizing.

Last edited by celluloidwisdom; 02-28-04 at 11:36 PM.
Old 02-28-04, 11:39 PM
  #82  
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
Again trying to get the final word?

How many times are you going to walk away and then come back to edit the message? Does this really have to bust into some sort of Gang street war to make you happy?

Well then, if you say you have considered the issue thoruoughly, what have you come to a conculsion on exactly and how has it had any consideration on either of the sides? You show NO sign of trying to see this down the middle. Exactly what is it that you want to prove? Forget agree to disagree. That is a bit different then actually seeing down the middle. I'm not on the extreme side that says Banish all smoking from films. I already made it clear that I do not share the views of the site. They bring out good points, but I'm not going to say smoking = Auto R. Others have been able to see that and we have come to agreements on how this could be done without risking any creative control and have been able to come to some sort of agreement. It seems like you are to high on your soap box to even bother thinking of anything else other then how this will destroy the way you see your realistic films. You have shown nothing to make it seem that you have even considered this to any degree. Regardless of the arguements I presented. It was atleast some sort of side. You have presented even less then that. You have provided your blind views that by doing anything along these lines will only destroy films and provide no sort of good to anyone. That doesn't show that you actually took anything into consideration. I agreed with plenty others in this thread who didn't share my views. How exactly am I closed minded again? I may not agree with your views, but that doesn't mean I'm not open to some rational thinking about this.

But then again, why not go for broke. How many more times are we going to go back and forth with the "You missed my point". It's fairly clear that we have. Pointing it out will do nothing to steer either of us to actually Getting the point any time soon so why not take the time to remake your point. Or would you just rather sit here all day back and forth missing and pointing it out?

Last edited by Jackskeleton; 02-28-04 at 11:43 PM.
Old 02-28-04, 11:58 PM
  #83  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Right behind you.
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well, my points are still sitting there in their original posts, waiting for your mind to wrap itself around them. Go revisit those posts if you're truly interested in my points. If you're not, don't. Up to you.

As to me providing my views...well, it's a discussion board, right? Whose views would you like me to provide?

Oh, and one more thing: "seeing down the middle" simply for the sake of appearing open-minded -- something you seem to consider a badge of honor -- is to me nothing more than a cop out. I've considered and I've concluded. And I've explained why. So I'm content.

Last edited by celluloidwisdom; 02-29-04 at 12:03 AM.
Old 02-29-04, 12:08 AM
  #84  
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
As my points are still in their post. Does that make you any more willing to go back and try to make sense of them? You are making this more difficult then it is. Besides that, as post go on it's an evolving discussion. I'm sure you can go back to my first post in this thread and you would get a very different view then what I am thinking right now. Not because I "copped out" and decided to bend my views. It's because after taking others views and combining what I agreed on in their views with my views come out with a different ever growing view of my own that I am at now.

As for providing your views. I provided mine and was told not to shove my views down others throats without something to back it up. I provided material. Sure material that you might not consider worthy, but it is still material none the less that show my views aren't entirely crazy.

What you consider a cop out is a simple matter of keeping things cival. Would you perfer to continue to make cheap shots in your post and hide behind a monitor or would you rather discuss this in an open manner and begin to realize why the other person thinks the way they do. Perhaps that would expand your view on the matter.. then again that might just be a cop out in itself right..

Aslong as you are content, that's all that matters. Glad you can sleep easy tonight. Is that enough for you to get on with your life or would you like to continue the ever so common back and forth cheap shots that drive this topic no where? All these "one more things" seem to be worth shit and offer nothing but a way to get in a final word.
Old 02-29-04, 12:52 AM
  #85  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Right behind you.
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
How many more times are you going to point out that you "provided material"? Christ, a monkey can do a Google search. Get past it.

And I'm not taking cheap shots when I point out the flaws in your logic. In fact, I've tried answering each of your arguments in turn, and I've been rewarded with nothing more than your continued call that I "provide material" beyond what I've already provided -- presumably, something from a secondary source. But I don't need a secondary source to reinforce my opinion, because my opinion, in this instance, doesn't call for that type of solidification. Instead, it calls for extrapolation; and what I find dangerous, in extrapolating out from the surrender of ratings points to smoking, is the potential for other surrenders down the line based on an industry's willingness to appease any "concerned" group that shouts loudly enough and gets itself a website.

Plenty of mechanisms exist already to deter teen smoking -- the first of which would be to enforce the laws against selling cigarettes to minors. Then, once the teen becomes an adult, s/he can decide whether or not smoking is something s/he wants to take up. At that point, the "marketing" your so worried about will bump up against their adult sensibilities, and the choice will be theirs to make. In the meantime, writers / actors will be free to create / interpret characters without fear of reprisal in the shape of a decrease in potential audience.

Last edited by celluloidwisdom; 02-29-04 at 01:05 AM.
Old 02-29-04, 01:13 AM
  #86  
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
a monkey can do a search so then... what's your excuse on not bringing any articles of what I ask? If it's a simple task easy enough for a monkey, it shouldn't be hard for your right?

Funny though, that comment about a monkey sounded like one of those cheap shots you weren't taking.

The moment you start proclaiming your opinion as fact you need some sort of source to support it. Your opinion is that YOU believe that this is not needed because it is not an issue and it may destroy creative control of one persons film. Shouldn't the voices of those screaming loud enough be heard? If they are, then you know the system is actually working. For good or bad, the concerns of the many should be heard. Since those loud voices are the voices of the people, why shouldn't they be heard?

I fall back to the statement. Do you believe that parents have no reason to worry if films are influencing their childern to smoke (one of the many factors yes, but one none the less) without any sort of warning or attachment on the rating? Not an automatic R rating, but some sort of warning would be nice. Yes, the kids can decided later on if they want to smoke when they are of legal age to do so, but is it so wrong to want to try to rate these films according to the concerns of the here and now? Standards change through the years. At one point it was perfectly fine to advertise on billboards and on tv for smoking. Now it is not. Should we be stuck in one time frame and have our standards never change?

Violence is more accepted than nudity in our film industry. Does this mean that if nudity ever becomes more common that the ratings shouldn't change accordingly? It's just a sign of the times. Smoking is a target on everyone's list. Is it much of a surpise that this is an issue where the voices are loud in?

Plenty of mechanisms exist to deter teen smoking -- the first of which would be to enforce the laws against selling cigarettes to minors. Then, once the teen becomes an adult, s/he can decide whether or not smoking is something s/he wants to take up. At that point, the "marketing" your so worried about will bump up against their adult sensibilities, and the choice will be theirs to make. In the meantime, writers / actors will be free to create / interpret characters without fear of reprisal.
man, when you miss the point, you really miss the point.
Old 02-29-04, 01:53 AM
  #87  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Right behind you.
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Jackskeleton
a monkey can do a search so then... what's your excuse on not bringing any articles of what I ask? If it's a simple task easy enough for a monkey, it shouldn't be hard for your right?
Can't you read? I explained why secondary sources don't apply to the arguments I was making. But for what it's worth, I asked before what kind of "material" you were looking for, but you didn't respond (other than to remind everyone still reading this -- yet again -- that you "provided material.")
Funny though, that comment about a monkey sounded like one of those cheap shots you weren't taking.
How's that? I said any monkey can do a Google search. Meaning it's not a big deal to do one. Meaning you might want to pull back a bit from the pride you keep exhibiting for having done one.
The moment you start proclaiming your opinion as fact you need some sort of source to support it.
I "proclaimed" my opinion as my opinion, no more, no less. And you don't necessarily need "facts" or "some sort of source" to support an opinion; rather, what is required is evidence, which can take many forms -- from anecdotes to logic to analogous hypotheticals. Perhaps if you weren't so hung up on this "fact" fixation -- something that I've explained to you doesn't apply here -- you'd be better able to understand my points.
Your opinion is that YOU believe that this is not needed because it is not an issue and it may destroy creative control of one persons film. Shouldn't the voices of those screaming loud enough be heard? If they are, then you know the system is actually working. For good or bad, the concerns of the many should be heard. Since those loud voices are the voices of the people, why shouldn't they be heard?
Huh? Who said anything about not allowing "the concerns of the many" to be heard? Having said that, I can clearly hear the concerns of the many and still reject those concerns, can I not? Or do you equate "being heard" with "getting one's way?"
I fall back to the statement. Do you believe that parents have no reason to worry if films are influencing their childern to smoke (one of the many factors yes, but one none the less) without any sort of warning or attachment on the rating? Not an automatic R rating, but some sort of warning would be nice. Yes, the kids can decided later on if they want to smoke when they are of legal age to do so, but is it so wrong to want to try to rate these films according to the concerns of the here and now? Standards change through the years. At one point it was perfectly fine to advertise on billboards and on tv for smoking. Now it is not. Should we be stuck in one time frame and have our standards never change?
You dismiss in a single parenthetical precisely what I object to: smoking is just one of many factors, and so shouldn't be singled out for special concern. Parents can be concerned about whatever they wish. But filmwriters need not be concerned with what every parent is concerned about, less what s/he produces become watered-down, safe, predictable pablum.
Violence is more accepted than nudity in our film industry. Does this mean that if nudity ever becomes more common that the ratings shouldn't change accordingly? It's just a sign of the times. Smoking is a target on everyone's list. Is it much of a surpise that this is an issue where the voices are loud in?
But you see, smoking is NOT "a target on everyone's list." It is a target on the list of people like you who don't believe teens can see a character smoking without falling prey to the evils of cigarettes. As I've said in several posts now, I don't accept your premise.

The law prohibits teen smoking. That's all the deterence that matters. If these teens chose to smoke as adults as a result of having seen Brad Pitt light up years before, well, they're adults now and should take responsibility for their adult decisions. In my estimation, guarding against temptation at the expense of free expression is a mistake. Which I've said over and over and over again.

Last edited by celluloidwisdom; 02-29-04 at 02:06 AM.
Old 02-29-04, 02:16 AM
  #88  
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
Actually, smoking isn't on my list and I'm not in the group of people like that. I'm on the stance that ANYTHING can be an influence on the viewers. Not just youth. There was a thread not to long ago asking if the food you saw on screen effected the way you wanted to eat. As in if you were hungry for a five dollar shake after watching pulp fiction. Many responded to it and it did show signs that the things you see on screen effect you in more ways then one.

Many factors do play into a kid smoking, but if you can dwindle down those factors and limit the exposure that a kid has to smoking on screen by rating a film accordingly, then why wouldn't you take that step? Film writers already need not be concerned about it. You seem to think that the MPAA's rating is the only factor in a film being watered down for the masses. Plenty of other things come into play before a studio even bothers to think "Hey, maybe we can make this PG-13". You make it sound like creative control is dead once the rating system comes into play. You seem to forget that a lot of bending has to take place for a studio to decide if they want to make a film. Plenty of script re-writes that have little to do with ratings and a lot to do with destroying or altering the creators basic idea. Will a smoking rating change alter some works? Yes. it is very possible that a rating change might alter the way a story goes from step one to final version, But a lot of other things already alter it. What is the harm in providing a warning to something that has become an issue in today's society. When you see diners ban smoking altogether, Night clubs see a change to no smoking and a law making it illegal to smoke within 20 feet of a building, then perhaps it isn't such a small crowd that is anti-smoking.. Don't cha think?

Using that basic logic, shouldn't you take into account that since you can't market tobacco to kids on print or tv, why should you be allowed to have it target that demograph on screen?

My arguement backs up the idea that when they are adults they can make the choice all there own. This is why smoking in an R rated film wouldn't be all that harmful. parents can choose to not let kids see the film. They eventually watch it as adults and then decide to smoke or not if it is such an influence on them.

I'm sure you will keep on saying it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again as you sure seem to want to have the last word in this.
Old 02-29-04, 02:39 AM
  #89  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Right behind you.
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well, things you see on the street can influence you, too, but that doesn't mean we should all walk around with blindfolds on. The only reason free will means anything is because of choice. But that's a bigger discussion than I want to get into.
Originally posted by Jackskeleton
What is the harm in providing a warning to something that has become an issue in today's society. When you see diners ban smoking altogether, Night clubs see a change to no smoking and a law making it illegal to smoke within 20 feet of a building, then perhaps it isn't such a small crowd that is anti-smoking.. Don't cha think?
...Which is all the more reason to fight its encroachment into additional arenas -- especially when you believe the instances you cite to be violations of individual freedoms.
Using that basic logic, shouldn't you take into account that since you can't market tobacco to kids on print or tv, why should you be allowed to have it target that demograph on screen?
Sigh. Again, I don't accept the premise that a character smoking on screen is an example of "marketing" to teens. Philip Morris is not writing the scripts. And people smoke. So it's plain silly to insist on airbrushing reality out of film.
My arguement backs up the idea that when they are adults they can make the choice all there own. This is why smoking in an R rated film wouldn't be all that harmful. parents can choose to not let kids see the film. They eventually watch it as adults and then decide to smoke or not if it is such an influence on them.
No. Because my point is that they shouldn't have to wait to be adults to see certain adult activities, the likes of which they can see on the street with no warning whatsoever. Otherwise, movies in which people drive should be R-rated.

Anway, you keep saying I want the last word on this, but that's not the case. I'm simply responding to your posts. Clearly you're projecting. So I'll let you have the last word. Which I'm quite sure you'll take.

Last edited by celluloidwisdom; 02-29-04 at 02:47 AM.
Old 02-29-04, 02:59 AM
  #90  
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
Sigh. Again, I don't accept the premise that a character smoking on screen is an example of "marketing" to teens. Philip Morris is not writing the scripts. And people smoke. So it's plain silly to insist on airbrushing reality out of film.
It's something that you don't have to accept. You don't have to accept the sky being blue, but you need to realize that it is. You may not see it as an influence to the younger views, but it is.

Which is all the more reason to fight its encroachment into additional arenas -- especially when you believe the instances you cite to be violations of individual freedoms.
You may see it as a bad thing. If you do, then by all means fight for it. The reason shit like that happens is because the voice of those that oppose it is heard louder then the voice for those for it. Then again, the voice for those that are for it is often enough the same voice of those who aren't going to do anything about it. Sit down and bitch about the change and not lift a finger. That's why it changes, because the voices of those who want to be heard are heard.

No. Because my point is that they shouldn't have to wait to be adults to see certain adult activities, the likes of which they can see on the street with no warning whatsoever. Otherwise, movies in which people drive should be R-rated.
I'm sure you can take it to that extreme, but at the present moment the anti-smoking movement is huge in force. When the anti minor driving cause picks up steam then perhaps a rating can be placed in that order.
Old 02-14-07, 02:24 PM
  #91  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Michigan, USA
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The latest:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2869434&page=1

Support for R-Rating in Movies with Tobacco Imagery, Survey


WASHINGTON
Feb. 12, 2007- According to a new survey, 81 percent of adults in the
United States agree adolescents are more likely to smoke if they watch
actors smoke in movies, and 70 percent support a new R-rating for any
movies with on-screen tobacco imagery, unless the film clearly
demonstrates the dangers of smoking.


The Social Climate Survey of Tobacco Control is an annual poll of
public attitudes about tobacco control policies. The American Medical
Association (AMA) Alliance, the 26,000 grassroots arm of the AMA,
joined researchers from Mississippi State University's Social Science
Research Center to make the announcement during the AMA's National
Advocacy Conference in Washington, D.C.


According to the report, public concern over the issue of tobacco
imagery on screen has grown substantially over the past year:


Support for an 'R'-rating for movies with tobacco that fail to portray
its health risks jumped nearly 12 percentage points between 2005 and
2006.


Two-thirds of adults want movie theaters to show anti-tobacco spots
before any film with tobacco images, up more than five percentage
points from the year before.


More than 60 percent of adults want tobacco branding out of all movie
scenes, a rise of nearly seven percentage points from the previous
year.


"This research is our latest effort to bring national attention to the
harmful effects that smoking in movies has on our youth," said AMA
Alliance President Nita Maddox. "As a parent myself, I am equally as
concerned as the parents we surveyed about children's exposure to
smoking on screen."


AMA Alliance members have launched a national, grassroots parent-to-
parent campaign to clear tobacco imagery from future movies rated G,
PG, and PG-13 by calling on the Motion Picture Association of American
and movie studios to implement voluntary solutions to reduce youth's
exposure to movie smoking.


The policies and the initiative, Screen Out, have been endorsed by
several national public health organizations including the AMA, AMA
Alliance, American Heart Association and the American Legacy
Foundation.


"There is an overwhelming and consistent body of evidence that shows a
clear link between smoking in movies and youth starting to smoke,"
said Robert McMillen, associate research professor at Mississippi
State University's Social Science Research Center and lead author of
the report.


"This national survey demonstrates substantial public and parental
support for voluntary policy changes by Hollywood to reduce this toll,
including R-rating for almost all future tobacco scenes."


In 2005, one-in-six top-grossing U.S. movies showed or mentioned an
actual tobacco brand. Two out of three U.S. live action movies
featured tobacco in 2006, including 68 percent of PG-13 films.


"Growing U.S. support for smoke free movies will protect young people
not only here, in North America, but wherever U.S. movies dominate the
media culture and wherever the tobacco industry is hunting its next
generation," said Maddox. "When we get smoking out of youth-rated
movies in Hollywood, it will be felt all the way to Kiev, Cape Town,
Shanghai, and Djakarta."


The Social Climate Survey of Tobacco Control is an annual poll of
public attitudes toward tobacco policies. The 2006 survey of 1,800
adults nationwide has a margin of error of +- 2.3 percent. Results for
the on-screen tobacco questions are available at a http://
www.ssrc.msstate.edu/socialclimate.


To learn more about the AMA Alliance's Screen Out! campaign, please
visit the AMA Alliance at http://www.amaalliance.org.


The AMA Alliance, the volunteer arm of the American Medical
Association, is committed to public health promotion in their
organizational mission. A not-for-profit organization of more than
26,000 grassroots members working in their communities, the AMA
Alliance strives to ensure child safety, prevent abuse and violence,
promote healthy lifestyles, and increase awareness of available health
care resources.


The SSRC was established in 1950 and has 50 research fellows and
approximately 100 research associates. Through its Survey Research
Unit, formed in 1981, it conducts approximately 25 research projects
each year, many of which focus on social and cultural dimensions of
health. Research at the center is sponsored by grants from the
National Science Foundation, the National Cancer Institute, National
Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institute of Mental Health, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of
Transportation, among others.
The insanity continues.....
Old 02-14-07, 02:55 PM
  #92  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 7,337
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
"70 percent support a new R-rating for any movies with on-screen tobacco imagery"?

That is a lie. Plain and simple.
Old 02-14-07, 03:13 PM
  #93  
DVD Talk Reviewer
 
tylergfoster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,540
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Peep
"70 percent support a new R-rating for any movies with on-screen tobacco imagery"?

That is a lie. Plain and simple.
How do you know? Just because it's unbelievable doesn't make it untrue.

The article presents a better scenario, I suppose: Don't make smoking an R-rated offense, but do the similar inverse: I'd support a ban on smoking in PG-13 films (and absolutely G and PG films). It's similar but not quite the same. It would be silly to take existing films or otherwise lower-rated films and slap a certain rating on them due to the smoking, but restricting smoking from appearing in PG-13 movies should have the same positive effect that's being suggested here with a little less of the stupid implementation.
Old 02-14-07, 04:01 PM
  #94  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Lincolnwood, Illinois
Posts: 1,504
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I can't help but be reminded of "Thank You For Smoking" while reading this thread.
Old 02-14-07, 04:08 PM
  #95  
DRG
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: ND
Posts: 13,421
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by droidguy1119
The article presents a better scenario, I suppose: Don't make smoking an R-rated offense, but do the similar inverse: I'd support a ban on smoking in PG-13 films (and absolutely G and PG films). It's similar but not quite the same.
How is it not the same? You do understand that the movie is created first, and then rated? While it is true that filmmakers aim for a certain rating when making a film, they ultimately don't have control over what the final rating will be until they turn in the final product to the ratings board. So if smoking was decided to be "banned" in PG-13 or lower movies, the only thing that would happen is that the ratings board would give that movie an automatic R rating when it was submitted.

Really, I think it is a silly argument. I honestly can't think of one mainstream movie with teen appeal in recent years where a character was smoking. Sure it may have happened, but if it wasn't prominent enough to be noticed by me it wasn't prominent enough to influence someone to smoke.

If anything, I think teens are more likely to be influenced by movie and music stars smoking in real life, whether in candid/paparazzi type shots or in gossip articles. People like Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, Mischa Barton etc. all are reported smokers even though I don't believe any has actually smoked in a movie/show/video/etc.
Old 02-14-07, 04:16 PM
  #96  
DVD Talk Reviewer
 
tylergfoster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,540
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Well, the main difference is if a cigarette shows up in a movie it's not going to get an R simply on the basis of it showing up. I suppose I'll refine my argument to that there should be a strong case for not showing cigarettes in PG-13 and lower movies, and if it does happen, then they should play a couple of anti-smoking PSAs before the film (perhaps these should note that there is smoking in the film so that the viewers will understand that the PSAs are a direct response to the smoking in the movie).

My argument and the main difference is that smoking in a movie should not immediately result in anything, but there should be a couple of steps involved here. I mean, in any case smoking is not neccesary in movies whether it happens everywhere in real life or not, so hopefully rules similar to this would cause filmmakers to re-evaluate the importance of including them if they are just doing it for the hell of it. As you say, you don't notice people smoking in PG-13 movies -- if this is true, then you shouldn't miss it if someone makes some rules about it.
Old 02-14-07, 05:06 PM
  #97  
DRG
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: ND
Posts: 13,421
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by droidguy1119
As you say, you don't notice people smoking in PG-13 movies -- if this is true, then you shouldn't miss it if someone makes some rules about it.
Look, I'm a non smoker so I'm not out to be some smoking activist. But I still think making it an automatic blanket R (or non PG13, whatever) for a smoking scene is silly. Hell, you can drink alcohol in PG13 movies and I'm certain more teens are influenced by that than a smoking scene.
Old 02-14-07, 06:33 PM
  #98  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Bethesda, MD, USA
Posts: 1,248
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by droidguy1119
Well, the main difference is if a cigarette shows up in a movie it's not going to get an R simply on the basis of it showing up. I suppose I'll refine my argument to that there should be a strong case for not showing cigarettes in PG-13 and lower movies, and if it does happen, then they should play a couple of anti-smoking PSAs before the film (perhaps these should note that there is smoking in the film so that the viewers will understand that the PSAs are a direct response to the smoking in the movie).

My argument and the main difference is that smoking in a movie should not immediately result in anything, but there should be a couple of steps involved here. I mean, in any case smoking is not neccesary in movies whether it happens everywhere in real life or not, so hopefully rules similar to this would cause filmmakers to re-evaluate the importance of including them if they are just doing it for the hell of it. As you say, you don't notice people smoking in PG-13 movies -- if this is true, then you shouldn't miss it if someone makes some rules about it.
Should we come up with a new rating, R-21 perhaps, for films that show people drinking alcohol? I don't believe that 17-20 year olds should be seeing such things, as they aren't old enough to drink. Forget the fact that at their local TGI Friday's, after the film, they'll see both smoking and drinking. Hollywood shouldn't brainwash our nation's 17-20 year olds that it's ok to drink alcohol.
Old 02-15-07, 05:54 AM
  #99  
DVD Talk Reviewer
 
tylergfoster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,540
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Did people not read the post?

My argument and the main difference is that smoking in a movie should not immediately result in anything. Like...an R rating, perhaps. To immediately rate and re-rate movies based on the appearance of a cigarette is ludicrous, but more attention paid to the presence and usage of cigarettes in PG-13 and lower movies would be good and perhaps an important thing to examine.

I'm saying that it should be a guideline that filmmakers should avoid smoking in PG-13 movies unless they feel they have good thematic reason, and if there is smoking, there should be PSAs made specifically for that movie (or at least PSAs that indicate that their existence is a direct result of smoking in the film) that play before the films in theaters and on DVD. Also, I am not sure if this is what they mean by cigarette "branding" but perhaps cigarette companies should not be allowed to put their brand into any film, and thus removing any possibility of promoting a cigarette through a film.

My theory is that it should be less about turning smoking into an R-rated offense and more about not advertising or promoting cigarettes through PG-13 films.

Last edited by tylergfoster; 02-15-07 at 05:57 AM.
Old 02-15-07, 08:45 AM
  #100  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Back in the 802, missing NYC
Posts: 5,281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
the rating system is terribly flawed and essetially pointless at this time anyway. i agree smoking is bad, and hollywood has a huge pull on kids and teens. I think it's right to have a more complete warning as an earlier poster said.

I think it could simply say this movie contains smoking along with the parts that tell you violence, nudity, drug use etc.... its equally as bad as any of those things, but has become so normal we don't realize how awful it and the industry is. (except for that wonderful end result called population control)

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.