Smoking and Hollywood

Smoking and Hollywood (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Level -> Smoking and Hollywood (5/10/2007 3:57:45 PM)
Smoking Now a Factor in Movie Ratings, MPAA Says By Frank AhrensWashington Post Staff Writer Thursday, May 10, 2007; 3:44 PM Depictions of smoking in films will now be a factor when a movie's rating is determined, possibly making a PG-13 movie R-rated, the Motion Picture Association of America said today. Along with violence, depictions of sex, adult language and other content considerations, the ratings organizations will now examine new releases to determine if the film glamorizes smoking or if it is pervasive in the film. Such scenes could change a movie's rating upward. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051001347.html

Kurzon -> RE: Smoking and Hollywood (5/10/2007 3:59:28 PM)
that is just asinine

domiguy -> RE: Smoking and Hollywood (5/10/2007 4:23:32 PM)
It's about time. I hate leaving the theater with my clothes reeking of second hand smoke from those over paid pieces of shit.

AquaticSub -> RE: Smoking and Hollywood (5/10/2007 4:25:50 PM)
Wow. So any movie set back in the day when smoking was extremely common and even allowed on airplanes will be censored just for that.

DomKen -> RE: Smoking and Hollywood (5/10/2007 4:31:47 PM)
Not censored just possibly rated more restrictively. A nice balance to the tobacco companies.paying producers to have characters smoke in their films.

AquaticSub -> RE: Smoking and Hollywood (5/10/2007 4:40:46 PM)
Yeah, I realized that it was a misuse of the word censor as soon as it sent. I just didn't feel like changing it. I still think it's stupid though. Historically accurate films are the only way some people learn about other eras. I don't want to know what rating Apollo 13 would get.

DomKen -> RE: Smoking and Hollywood (5/10/2007 4:53:51 PM)
Apollo 13 was rated PG which is about right as its probably too intense for little kids. As the smoking was not gratuitous but was an accurate depiction of that era I would be surprised if it was bumped up to more than PG13. But I hope this will discourage "cool" movies from depicting smoking as glamorous which inevitably influences some kids to try cigarettes.

AquaticSub -> RE: Smoking and Hollywood (5/10/2007 5:05:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Apollo 13 was rated PG which is about right as its probably too intense for little kids. As the smoking was not gratuitous but was an accurate depiction of that era I would be surprised if it was bumped up to more than PG13. But I hope this will discourage "cool" movies from depicting smoking as glamorous which inevitably influences some kids to try cigarettes. What "cool" movies do? Hell even James Bond gave up smoking because of the anti-smoking lobby.

GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Smoking and Hollywood (5/10/2007 6:10:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Apollo 13 was rated PG which is about right as its probably too intense for little kids. As the smoking was not gratuitous but was an accurate depiction of that era I would be surprised if it was bumped up to more than PG13. But I hope this will discourage "cool" movies from depicting smoking as glamorous which inevitably influences some kids to try cigarettes. What "cool" movies do? Hell even James Bond gave up smoking because of the anti-smoking lobby. <general reply> And will we be going after the drinking next? The gratuitous drinking that is. Because we know that in most instances the drinking is necessary, especially when we get to see the Smirnoff label. Or is it still okay for James Bond to continue to order his martini "shaken, not stirred" as long as he doesn't light up?

Tuomas -> RE: Smoking and Hollywood (5/10/2007 7:41:41 PM)
I guess we are not capible of deciding what is good for us... Yes, companies do pay for product placement. However, isn't it usually the antagonists who smoke? Waterworld, for example? Anyway, much as I hate smoking and am in fact allergic to tobacco smoke, I'm very much against this current fad of going after smokers and "tobacco companies". Yeah, tobacco increases your chance of cancer. So does drinking pop, and eating McDonnald's hamburgers regularly will increase your risk of obesity and associated deseases. Should they be illegal too? Should children be "protected" from "companies" in the media? People forget that the right to choose means that you actually have the option to be wrong...

Dauric -> RE: Smoking and Hollywood (5/10/2007 8:15:23 PM)
I have a psychotic raving hatred of product placement... But I feel the same about censorship. I support the idea of ratings even if I don't agree with their implementation most of the time. I happen to prefer the rating system of computer and console games (the ESRB) better than the movie ratings, at least the (current) ESRB gives some idea as to -why- a certain rating was applied. No rating system will mollify the idiots though. It was some years ago, around christmas-time, some mother bought her 10 year old "Grand Theft Auto: Vice City", and then... shock of all shocks... was horrified at the content and said it was inappropriate for her son. Well no shit. The game only carries a rating of "M", it's explained on the box that the game contains strong sexual content, strong language, blood, gore and violence. Oh, yeah, and the name of the game implies that you're stealing cars in a city of nothing but red-light districts... Grand upshot of the whole smoking thing: More movies will get higher levels of movie ratings, which means squat as underage kids are taken to see "R" movies all the time (I have a friend that works in a movie theater, it's more common than it's sane to think about.), parents will continue to use movie theaters and DVDs as babysitters rather than take on the arduous task of being parents, and kids will be exposed to the same garbage that they were exposed to before. My own ranting, raving $0.02, Dauric.

dcnovice -> RE: Smoking and Hollywood (5/10/2007 8:17:01 PM)
quote: A nice balance to the tobacco companies.paying producers to have characters smoke in their films. Do they really do that?

FatDomDaddy -> RE: Smoking and Hollywood (5/10/2007 8:20:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dauric I have a psychotic raving hatred of product placement... Why? Real everyday folks use name brand products. I don't see why a producer or a director should not use that to offset the costs of making the film if it meets with their own vision of the art.

AquaticSub -> RE: Smoking and Hollywood (5/10/2007 8:24:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Apollo 13 was rated PG which is about right as its probably too intense for little kids. As the smoking was not gratuitous but was an accurate depiction of that era I would be surprised if it was bumped up to more than PG13. But I hope this will discourage "cool" movies from depicting smoking as glamorous which inevitably influences some kids to try cigarettes. What "cool" movies do? Hell even James Bond gave up smoking because of the anti-smoking lobby. <general reply> And will we be going after the drinking next? The gratuitous drinking that is. Because we know that in most instances the drinking is necessary, especially when we get to see the Smirnoff label. Or is it still okay for James Bond to continue to order his martini "shaken, not stirred" as long as he doesn't light up? Ugh... first his smokes, then his booze. Before long he will displaying his Trojans very prominatly on the bedside table before he has sex with the hot chick he just met and then there will be "cleverly inserted" speeches about safe sex and respecting women as people not just sex objects...

FatDomDaddy -> RE: Smoking and Hollywood (5/10/2007 8:24:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: A nice balance to the tobacco companies.paying producers to have characters smoke in their films. Do they really do that? Again... So what if they do? At this time cigarettes are still a legal product and again, it ads to the realism to have people smoking. For the record... the next time liberals start complaining about censorship from the right, I will have to remember this thread and bring it up. The MPAA is one of the most liberal and left leaning orgs in the country.

AquaticSub -> RE: Smoking and Hollywood (5/10/2007 8:26:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dauric Grand upshot of the whole smoking thing: More movies will get higher levels of movie ratings, which means squat as underage kids are taken to see "R" movies all the time (I have a friend that works in a movie theater, it's more common than it's sane to think about.), parents will continue to use movie theaters and DVDs as babysitters rather than take on the arduous task of being parents, and kids will be exposed to the same garbage that they were exposed to before. My own ranting, raving $0.02, Dauric. Bingo! Don't they get to charge more for the R rated movies anyway?

Tuomas -> RE: Smoking and Hollywood (5/10/2007 8:30:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: A nice balance to the tobacco companies.paying producers to have characters smoke in their films. Do they really do that? Yes. So do auto manufacturers, soft-drink companies and even activist groups. Product placement actually makes some programs possible. Think about it: how much do you pay to watch your favorite TV shows. That's right, now if you aren't paying for it, who is? Advertizing. Since people hate commercials, product placement replaces it, allowing you to enjoy the show with less interruption, but still be informed about the new product. A good example is Twiser, where the vehicles were donated by Dodge. It was part of ther advertizing campaign for the new Dodge Ram (which had a new radical design), and it allowed the company to help fund the arts. Major companies rutinely fund scientific, environmental and artistic works in exchange for product-placement and advertizing.

AquaticSub -> RE: Smoking and Hollywood (5/10/2007 8:33:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tuomas A good example is Twiser, where the vehicles were donated by Dodge. It was part of ther advertizing campaign for the new Dodge Ram (which had a new radical design), and it allowed the company to help fund the arts. Major companies rutinely fund scientific, environmental and artistic works in exchange for product-placement and advertizing. Not to mention all those really bloody annoying "truth" campaigns Phillip Morris funds.

FatDomDaddy -> RE: Smoking and Hollywood (5/10/2007 8:48:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub Not to mention all those really bloody annoying "truth" campaigns Phillip Morris funds. Which are many times anyting but.

Tuomas -> RE: Smoking and Hollywood (5/10/2007 8:53:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub Not to mention all those really bloody annoying "truth" campaigns Phillip Morris funds. Didn't see them, really. But I've seen terribly inaccurate "anti-smoking" campaign advertizements, not to mention tobacco companies being forced to put misleading labels on their own products. Personally, I think this whole notion that society knows best, and that is best for you should be promoted in popular entertainment just another symptom of our degrading democracy. People are able to make rational decisions based on the pros and cons of any given product. It's not my -or the company's- fault that people are suckers and buy things because they see them in a movie. If someone is stupid enough to thing it's cool to smoke because they see Brad Pitt light up -well, they are morons and deserve to get lung cancer.[:'(]

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125