Smoking in a movie = Rated R?

[zero]

http://www.slate.com/id/2163255/fr/flyout

Puff Piece

Harvard tells Hollywood to ban cigarettes from kids' movies.

By Kim Masters

Updated Friday, April 6, 2007, at 1:05 PM ET

Cold turkey: The Motion Picture Association of America has gotten caught up in a web of its own devising when it comes to the issue of smoking in movies.

The MPAA has a relatively new boss—Dan Glickman—and as we reported earlier this week, he's making some moves. The organization has come down on revolting ads for the horror film Captivity, perhaps hoping to impress the government with its responsiveness on the issue of Hollywood selling violence in a manner that reaches children. With the Federal Trade Commission about to release a report on that issue, Glickman's actions may be too little, too late. And the MPAA could have similar problems when it comes to smoking.

Powerful anti-smoking groups have been pushing the MPAA to slap any movie that shows smoking with an automatic R rating, unless that movie deals with a historical figure who actually smoked (think Good Night and Good Luck) or shows people suffering hideous consequences as a result of their folly. According to the research of a group called Smoke Free Movies, most PG-13 movies depict smoking, and that contributes to hundreds of thousands of kids taking up cigarettes.

Yep... that's what does it, 101 Dalmations has contributed to millions of smoking habits because of Cruella Deville. Automatic R rating! How much more ass backwards can this country get? Where does it end? Oh, they're eating a cheeseburger, that can cause heart disease, R RATING! Oh and there's a fat guy, that's not a good example for our kids, R RATING!

Meanwhile, on government-regulated broadcast television, there's a rotting corpse and David Caruso, two things much more offensive than smoking.

Edited April 7, 2007 by Zero

[EndOfAnEra]

While the R-Rating is a little far, there really isn't a need for smoking in children's movies at all.

[-A-]

Zero = anti-children :thumbsdown:

[Guest digrind]

There are ads for this campaign literally every ten feet or so in New York City. It's kind of disturbing how militant anti-smoking propogandizers have become over the past few years.

Even so, as you said, it's a nonsensical push that should never go through, as driving dangerously, violence, and other activities with direct harmful consequences barely warrant a push into PG-13 territory. This move is just goofy on so many levels that I can't even see the increasingly Puritanical US government buying into it.

And if you don't believe my cries of Puritanism, watch Back to the Future. Note the violence. Note how many times the word "shit" is used. That movie then had the same rating as Charlie and the Chocolate Factory had a few years ago. Now tell me we're not moving in that direction in America.

Edited April 7, 2007 by digrind

[Thomas]

LOL AMERICA

[gunnar hendershow]

To be fair, smoking in movies did play a big role in my starting to smoke. As it did for a lot of my friends. But that doesn't matter since movie ratings are stupid anyway. People are too reliant on them and studios do what they can to make a movie not get a certain rating. It ruins the art.

Anti-smoking groups = anti-art

[Steeb]

While the R-Rating is a little far, there really isn't a need for smoking in children's movies at all.

[ROC]

Meanwhile, on government-regulated broadcast television, there's a rotting corpse and David Caruso, two things much more offensive than smoking.

[MalaCloudy Black]

Fuck. (I'm stil rated PG-13 guys!)

[Hobo]

So will this mean that film trailers will have 'smoking' as well as 'mild peril' added to the list of warnings that they put at the bottom of the screen.

[NobBe Nobbs]

Fuck. (I'm stil rated PG-13 guys!)

[stokeriño]

It amused me earlier today when browsing through the Odeon website to see the warning for Mr. Bean's Holiday: "Contains irresponsible behaviour". I beg your pardon?

[Steeb]

Kermode did a lovely spiel about how apt that is. I recommend finding it if you're less lazy than I.

[gunnar hendershow]

It amused me earlier today when browsing through the Odeon website to see the warning for Mr. Bean's Holiday: "Contains irresponsible behaviour". I beg your pardon?

I figured it would read "Contains Rowan Atkinson."

Ice burn. Especially since I like Rowan Atkinson. Blackadder > You.

Edited April 8, 2007 by damshow

[EndOfAnEra]

While the R-Rating is a little far, there really isn't a need for smoking in children's movies at all.

Why isn't there?

If smoking is pushed as evil, and only the evildoers smoke, as I believe is usually the case, wouldn't that supposedly put kids off more? I don't know. I was never a child. >_>

[zero]

To be fair, smoking in movies did play a big role in my starting to smoke. As it did for a lot of my friends.

I really don't mean this to insult you, but how? No one can possibly be that much of a sheep to smoke because someone in a movie smokes. Maybe thirty years ago, when the effects of smoking weren't as known as they are now. People might smoke because their friends do, but I refuse to think it's because of a movie. Honestly, if some kid smokes because of a fictional character, a cowboy, or a camel in sunglasses, I want them to get cancer. There, I said it.

So will this mean that film trailers will have 'smoking' as well as 'mild peril' added to the list of warnings that they put at the bottom of the screen.

"Use of tobacco and/or alcohol" is already one of the things listed in the ratings, often it's also "...all involving teens."

The problem is a lot of parents are too ignorant to prevent their kids from doing any of the things they see, and actually sit them down and say 'this is fantasy'.

So tell me, why should filmmakers or video game developers have their art restricted - which also causes them to lose more money with an R or M rating - because parents can't do their fucking jobs? Listen, if you shit the kid out, it's your responsibility, not Rockstar Games. That's the fucking problem with this country, everyone wants to pump out a fetus or two, but they don't actually want any of the responsibility. Just because you don't want to tell your kids about drugs, smoking, drinking, or sex, it doesn't mean I have to have my forms of entertainment limited. They're not my kids and I'm not your fucking deputy.

[gunnar hendershow]

To be fair, smoking in movies did play a big role in my starting to smoke. As it did for a lot of my friends.

I really don't mean this to insult you, but how? No one can possibly be that much of a sheep to smoke because someone in a movie smokes. Maybe thirty years ago, when the effects of smoking weren't as known as they are now. People might smoke because their friends do, but I refuse to think it's because of a movie. Honestly, if some kid smokes because of a fictional character, a cowboy, or a camel in sunglasses, I want them to get cancer. There, I said it.

First off. Living causes cancer. You're just as likely to get cancer as any smoker, just not lung cancer. That's what most people aren't told, and don't understand.

Second off. It's not like I said "Wow that looks cool, I'll do it." More of a "Sure I'll have a cigarette" when it's offered since I've seen it a lot.

[EndOfAnEra]

To be fair, smoking in movies did play a big role in my starting to smoke. As it did for a lot of my friends.

I really don't mean this to insult you, but how? No one can possibly be that much of a sheep to smoke because someone in a movie smokes. Maybe thirty years ago, when the effects of smoking weren't as known as they are now. People might smoke because their friends do, but I refuse to think it's because of a movie. Honestly, if some kid smokes because of a fictional character, a cowboy, or a camel in sunglasses, I want them to get cancer. There, I said it.

So will this mean that film trailers will have 'smoking' as well as 'mild peril' added to the list of warnings that they put at the bottom of the screen.

[zero]

First off. Living causes cancer. You're just as likely to get cancer as any smoker, just not lung cancer. That's what most people aren't told, and don't understand.

Smoking raises your risk of getting cancer far more than not.

Sorry, you seemed to miss the enitre point of this. What do you think ratings are for? Rockstar Games don't MAKE KIDS MOVIES, which was what I was arguing. Anything made for people of age is a completely different topic.

Fine, revision. If you shit the kid out, it's your responsibility, not EA Games.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

OMG, TEH LMAO!!!!!1111111111111

[Pepsi]

I also though kids smoke because they're friends/parents smoke. It's just how it is, there are enough anti-smoking stuff out there that if the kid smokes he/she knows what they are doing. Still to this day find it funny that at 16 is most states you can drive a car and possibly kill someone and yourself yet you can't purchase cigarettes until 2 years later.