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

I heard about this movement a while ago, but first time i saw it in print. Some bullshit organization in San Francisco, publicmediacenter.org took out a full page in today's Variety. Its heading:

An R rating for smoking: why it's reasonable, effective, and inevitable.


They basicly feel that by issuing an R rating for any movie that shows smoking, it will save 62,000 kids from dying of smoking related illness.

yet its still cool to make violent and mean spirited films pg 13 while smoking, sexually explicit or real situations in a real life setting get an R. Nice

This seem laughably lame to anyone else?

Actually I think its a good idea. Smoking is far worse than those other things. At least profanity won't give you cancer.



Edited to add :) for those who need it.

Well films showing explicit drug use usually get an R rating, but then again drugs are illegal and smoking is not. What's next? Films that show people drinking getting an NC-17 rating?

oh, I didn't know that casablanca would now be an R rating?

I remember coming out of the movie theatre after watching "The Believers" with Martin Sheen (and "Lethal Weapon"). Both those movies featured smoking by the main heroes... I remember going out of the theatre and feeling confident and puffing away on my cigarette...

I clearly remember the Winston cigarette pack in "The Believers" waiting for Martin Sheen's character to pick it up (same brand I was smoking). This may sound silly but your subconscious picks it up and associates it with a feeling of comfort and assurance (as it did to me I guess).

In the movies when a guy is about to be executed by firing squad what does he ask for? A cigarette. In the old war movies when a wounded soldier is brought back the first thing his mates give him is a cigarette heh.

It is HIDDEN ADVERTISING and I believe the subconscious registers that .

Am I smoking now? Yes. But I've been gaining small victories on that vile weed and I'm not giving up.

http://www.courier-journal.com/featu...20020504_4.jpg "Rrrrrrrrrrated R!"

R rating for smoking? Pretty lame when you can walk down the street and see people smoking cigerettes. I suppose we should slap an R rating on walking around.

Are movies trying to advertise smoking? Well, more than likely not. Honestly, people smoke, that's life. Why is it so prevalant in Hollywood? Well, I imagine it has less to do with these conspiracy theories and more to do with the fact lots of people smoke in Hollywood. Not to mention the visual flair smoke provides in of itself. But I stick by the fact that...well...people smoke. And since lots of movies are about troubled people, criminals, forlorn artists, conflicted people, etc, you are going to continue to see people smoke in movies.

If they slap an "R" on new films being released, then they would almost certainly have to go back and re-rate older films. No way would that be practical or feasible. I'm not appreciative of being around smoke, or people that smoke, but this is too extreme. Just like PETA. Good message at heart, but lousy, wacko execution. These types of groups can be so offensive themselves, that a lot of people would take up smoking and wearing fur just in spite.

I love it when people try to push their morals and standards onto others. It's so keen.

I dunno. I think I'm on the fence on this. I mean come on, you have a rating to know what you are exposing your kids to in a film and the appeal of making smoking cool in films is a really big issue.

Here is the ad that was in yesterdays Daily variety:

AN R-Rating for smoking Why it's reasonable, effective, and inevitable.

Smoking appeared in 77% of movies rated pg-13 over the last five years. Research shows movies are the biggest pro-smoking unfluence on children today, more powerful than traditional tobacco advertising. 390,000 kids every year start smoking because of exposure to smoking on screen; as adults 100,000 of them will die from it. A common-sense change to Hollywood's rating system can cut this death toll by 60% or more.

Why it's time to rate smoking "r":
Research published last june in one of the world's leading medical journals confirms aa decade of findings: smoking in movies recruits over half of all new teenage smokers in the united states.
The effect of movie smoking on kids is clear and direct: The more they see, the more likely they are to start smoking. The teens most powerfully influenced are the children of non-smoking parents.
The good news: The less smoking teens see in the movies, the less likely they are to light that first cigarette.
Because kids get 62% of theirexposure to movie smoking from G, PG, and PG-13 movies. rating smoking "R" will reduce smoking rates proportionally.
Of the 390,000 kids each year who now start smoking because of what they see on screen, 100,000 a year will eventually die from tobacco-related disease.
Averting 62% of those deaths a year is equal to ending all U.S. deaths from drunk driving, AIDS, violent crime and illegal drugs. Worth doing? Well, yes.


HOLLYWOOD CAN DO IT TOMORROW.
it's no stretch to make the "R" cover smoking. It already covers other legal activities, while giving parents "cautionary advance warning" say the MPAA. When it rates 4-letter words "R" for example, the MPAA is distinguishing between talk appropriate for kids and speech intended for adult audiences.
It doesn't censor. It age-classifies. Treat smoking the same waay. If a studio decides it's vital for a character to smoke, it can accept an R rating just as it does now for cursing or removing a rbra- two legal activities that kill nobody at all.
That's no bar to creativity. Studios would still be free to make all the smoking films they want. Many smoking films are already rated R for other reasons. Kids could still see them, too, if their parents take them- that's what an R rating means. Real progress is when R takes meanings. Real progess is when R takes smoking out of the G, PG, PG-13 films that kids are exposed to most. In fact, only an R can keep smoking out of new youth-related movies, cut teen smoking rates and save 62,000 lives a year.

...

other junk.

find out more at

http://www.SMOKEFREEMOVIES.UCSF.EDU

for a supposedly forward thinking society, I find the purpose of the MPAA (and the FCC for that matter) and their mandating of restrictions and rules to be really anal and archiac.

It makes sense to me. I know that the latest racing video games don't have alcohol and tobacco advertising on the cars and tracks even though they are there in real life. It has to do with them being prohibited from selling anything with alcohol or tobacco advertising to minors. If they didn't remove or replace the ads with something else, they would have to put a mature rating on the video game. Why shouldn't the same reasoning apply to movies?

I disagree. I think that the MPAA's rating system accuratly represents the concerns of modern American parents. Whether you or I agree with those concerns is another matter entirely.

Remember, this isn't censorship, it's a rating system to warn parents about the content. You can choose to ignore the rating and not pay attention to it like I do. But to have the warning up there is worth it if it helps parents decide what they let the kids watch.

I guess I am in the opinion that in today's society, parent's are doing less parenting and laying that responsibility on others. This is a perfect example of that.

I don't think it's laying the responsibility on others. It's a tool to help parent's decide what movies have content that is appropriate for their children. It's silly to think that parents should have to personally pre-screen every movie their child wants to see, and be left completley in the dark as to its content in the name of "responsible parenting."

But that is the purpose of the MPAA. to give a parents a heads up on the content of what a film has. If you have a warning, wouldn't you want to have it much clearer on what exactly the film has in it that might be a little offensive to those viewing?

say the rating box says "Rated R for tobacco use" and nothing else. Will it detour people from watching it? I doubt it. If anything it just gives a heads up. Something the MPAA is there to do.

I am just stating that its the sign of the times, that literally everthing has to get spelled out and explained to the point of overkill so as not to offend everyone. It's not just about parenting, it's the justification of the what the MPAA rating board (comprised of parents nonetheless) finds objectionable and likes to fingerpoint at.

"If anything it just gives a heads up. Something the MPAA is there to do."

That's naive. An R rating doesn't just give information: it actually reduces the number of people who can see the film (at least it does if the theatre owners are living up to their side of the bargain.) It has a profound economic effect on the movie.

And if you make every subject that *some* people considered offensive grounds for an R rating, 90% of all movies will be rated R.

Some people find violence offensive, for example, even if it's not graphic. Does that mean every movie containing violence MUST be rated R "just to give parents a heads up?"

If all you're interested in is giving parents information, there's no reason for the current ratings system at all. Just require an information box describing the content in ads and on a central website (e.g. "contains comic violence, suggestive dialogue, and smoking.")

Will an R rating limit the amount of people that will see a film? Yes, it will. Is that a bad thing? I really couldn't care less if it did. Most religious parents are still going to drag their childern to see passions of christ even though it's gore filled and violent. But should that be reason to give it a PG rating? Call it where it falls.

I realize that some people don't find smoking offensive and I really don't have anything against smokers, but I can see the point. If films glorify or make smoking look cool by having the lead puff one after killing a couple of baddies then yes, it can lead to the wrong influence on young minds. As for getting rid of the whole R,PG,PG-13, G ratings and just putting a sentence, that is silly. The letter rating gives you a general idea on the film. from there a descriptive information box is needed to go in deeper on why it's rated the way it is, but you need that letter box to get the attention. You need both in order to make it work.

Again, ratings really only come into play when you are a parent or under 17. I haven't worried about a rating since I turned 18. Why should I? And if you give me the whole "Well what if they dumb it down to get a wider rating" line I am under the belief that both sides create the myth. A PG-13 film can be just as good as a Rated R film. If a studio waters it down then take your beef to the producers and studio. The system is just there to call it what it is.

Besides, if a film that would have been PG-13 turns into R because of smoking the discriptive text would then say "Rated R for Tobacco use" If this does detour parents away from watching the film then hey, it's the choice made by the parent. I'm willing to bet that "rated R for smoking" as the only factor of the R rating wouldn't keep the parents away from it.

The problem is that many, not all, parents leave their responsibility of parenting to every one else. When I grew up my parents had to pre-screen questionable movies before I was allowed to see them. If there was a movie in question that they did not want to see, I was S.O.L. Parents these days are lazy. They want to set little Johnny in front of the tube and do their own thing. Then they get upset when the programing that the child watches is not to their standards. They want the world to conform to their "needs". They want the MPAA or the FCC to sanatize the entertainment industry so that the don't have to put forth the effort to monitor what their children are doing.

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.

When I grew up parents took an active role in rasing their children. We were told that we couldn't do this or see that until we were older. Now we are grown, and the lazy ass parents these days say we can't do this or see that because of the children. It's total BS, it's out of control and the rest of you should be pissed.

As much hate that goes around for the MPAA I see them more as a way to sort out films then actually sanatize it. Sure a lot of studios bend over backwards to get a certain type of rating (say they want a PG-13) it may seem like it's the MPAA's fault and they are evil, but it's just the guidelines that we enforce on ourselves as a soceity.

http://www.saturatedpixels.com/smoke.jpg

SMOKE!

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.

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.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.

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.

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. :up:

:lol: Awesome.

If teens or the underaged are shown smoking, it should definitely warrant a PG-13 or an R depending on the circumstances.

how on earth did this get to the second page without a link to the infamous rabidly anti-smoking imdb commando threads :)

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.

Those threads weren't archived. :(

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
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.

Again, it's about the use of said content in context. Show a teenager smoking and stamp that one an R I say.

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.