var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
GenerousHelpingOf_GitEmSteveDave
May 28, 2009 12:14 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

OK, people smoke. It's a part of the public. Apparently a huge part judging by all the laws passed.

You know what? The porn industry is large as well, and it's not good for minors. So how about we ban sex and skin in movies? I mean, they only put them in movies to sell porn, right?

/rant

P.S. Phil? You do realize that Wolverine's cigar was never lit in the movie, right? At least in the version I down...I mean saw.

Reply
9 replies
\"user-pic\"
johnva
May 28, 2009 3:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HasPonies!Envy_GitEmSteveDave: Difference - sexuality is not inherently bad for you. Smoking is.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Cyberxion101
May 28, 2009 7:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@johnva: Sex can be pretty bad for you if you're not educated about the dangers associated with it. Aids for example.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
HasPonies!Envy_GitEmSteveDave
May 28, 2009 6:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@johnva: So you are saying teen smoking is bad, but teen pregnancy/STI's is perfectly OK?

My stance is this. If a lot of people do it in real life, then don't think by taking it out of a movie, it will stop people from being influenced by it when they are in the real world for the other 22 hours of the day. I mean, they never showed a toilet in Star Trek, but did that mean the people watching stopped using them after watching?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
squinko
May 28, 2009 6:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@johnva: Drinking can be bad for you too, and we know that Budweiser (if not other beer/other alcohol companies) had product placement agreements with several movies and TV shows. Why isn't that more regulated?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
morlo
May 28, 2009 6:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@johnva: Sex with another person is worse than smoking due to the whole miracle of life thing.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
chauncy that billups
May 28, 2009 3:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@johnva: Casual violence in movies is inherently bad for you. should we ban all movie violence?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
johnva
May 28, 2009 3:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bilups: Nope, not necessarily. I don't think that smoking should be banned, either. I just think that it's disingenuous to compare sex with smoking.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
zandar
May 28, 2009 2:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HasPonies!Envy_GitEmSteveDave:

There's no good reason to ban it, and every reason not to. To simply deny something exists will seem ridiculous. Something that is suppressed will pop up in some unexpected way, usually in an unpleasant way. I say leave it alone.

That said, the billboard campaign doesn't seem incompatible with smoking in movies. Merely raising awareness of how things influence us is a GOOD thing. Leave the smoking and ask people: you may think it looks cool because you've seen it in a movie- is that a good reason to start?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Josh_G
May 28, 2009 12:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GenerousHelpingOf_GitEmSteveDave:

I like the porn comparsion. Now we just need a mobile billboard with a young girl asking, \"Which movie studios will cause me to experiment sexually this summer?\"

Seriously though, smoking in movies has gotten way toned down from what it used to be. While if anything the sex and alcohol has gotten ramped way up to compensate. Take your average movie about college for example.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Joewithay
May 28, 2009 12:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Well Wolverine needs to smoke, it is part of his character from the comics. Plus he can never get cancer anyway with his healing powers.

Reply
9 replies
\"user-pic\"
cuchanu
May 28, 2009 6:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Joewithay: That's funny. I can't bring myself to type lol but if I could you would have earned it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
korybing
May 28, 2009 4:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Joewithay: I was just going to mention that too. Wolverine without a cigar is not Wolverine at all. Wolverine has smoked cigars for literally decades.

I'm all for keeping people aware of the fact that smoking is dangerous, but I don't think the anti-smoking people are going about it the right way. I've know several smokers who are even more stubborn about quitting smoking now that the ads are out, just because they think they're obnoxious and self-righteous. Not quitting because an ad tells you you should quit isn't the best reason to do anything, but people do it.

If the ads were more informational and less \"you're a moron if you smoke\" I think they'd have a better impact.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Coyote
May 28, 2009 3:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Joewithay: ding, ding, ding

The truly sad thing about these anti-smoking/drinking/sex/gambling/drug ads is they are little better than the substance they are trying to fight.
Most of the time they sensationalize it more than movies ever could. Causing kids to WANT to try it (or being so blatantly retarded it comes off as a joke and not a warning).
They also have their own investments in these so called vices. Honestly if everyone stopped smoking tomorrow would these people would be happy? Most of them, no, they would be out of a job.
Vices come in all sizes and varieties and for some of us they are the things that make life worthwhile.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
geneb5
May 28, 2009 2:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Joewithay: So what explains Lois Lane chain-smoking Marlboro Lights in Superman I & II, when she never touched a cigarette in 40 years of previous comics?

Oh, Philip Morris paid for the promotion? OK, no problem.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
JPropaganda
May 28, 2009 3:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@geneb5: We're not talking about Superman I and II. We're talking about a character who has ALWAYS smoked cigars. It would be disingenuous if he didn't in the new movie.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Joewithay
May 28, 2009 1:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@B1663R: lol, I can imagine an PSA of Hugh Jackman at the end of moving saying something like that:

\"Remember Kids, as Wolverine I can heal and you can't. Don't smoke.\"

/Shooting_Star \"The More You Know\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Rectilinear Propagation
May 28, 2009 12:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Joewithay: Even if they knew that they probably wouldn't care. They'd say that the studio should have 'fixed' that part.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Rectilinear Propagation
May 28, 2009 12:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"Which movie studios will cause me to smoke this summer?\"
None.
It's a PG-13 movie, not a G rated Disney film. By the time I was old enough to watch those films my parents had convinced me that smoking was the nastiest thing ever.

Does anyone remember the campaign a while back to try to make smoking scenes a reason to automatically make a movie rated R? Freaking ridiculous. There's a difference between showing characters that smoke and endorsing smoking.
Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
Jessica Haas
May 28, 2009 6:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Rectilinear Propagation: Exactly, none.

Not just because of the reasons you mention (which I agree with) but because this girl is not old enough to legally possess them.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
korybing
May 28, 2009 4:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Rectilinear Propagation: I agree. I find the old smoking scenes from movies in the 30's to be incredibly cool and sexy, but I also know that I don't really want to put that crap in my lungs.

I'm smart enough to realize that characters in a movie won't get lung cancer unless it's a relevant plot point, while I could either be perfectly safe or die from emphazema if I took up the habit. I don't feel like taking the chance.

And hell, when I was a kid there was 0% pressure to take up smoking and I thought that everybody who did were losers. It wasn't until college when I discovered that people smoke for other reasons than \"to look cool\" and when the high pressure of college got to me, I finally had to make a serious decision about smoking.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Rectilinear Propagation
May 28, 2009 12:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Tmoney02: It's considered when they rate movies now but it doesn't necessarily make it an R rated movie: [www.msnbc.msn.com]

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Face Imploder
May 28, 2009 12:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Seriously, why do people seem this stupid? If Hollywood were depicting real life (even the dank-stanky parts of it) there are plenty of people who smoke. If there were NOBODY smoking in movies, then they would be unrealistic. It's insane.

Plus, cigars ARE cool.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Murph1908
May 28, 2009 12:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So. Let me make sure I understand the current rules about what is ok for a movie (or video game).

Sex or nudity - Bad
Smoking - Bad
Any hint of racial bias - Bad
Violence, explosions, killings - OK.
Violence towards animals - Bad.

Gotcha

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
geneb5
June 1, 2009 1:29 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Murph1908:

I know the movie. And being as naive and gullible as you, I believe everything I see in the movies or read on the internet. As I recall, the film is overblown and deals almost exclusively with sex and violence. It finds conflict and inconsistency about these issues at the MPAA. Duh. This reflects America. There's always going to be differing standards, and the MPAA is in the middle of a broader war. Perhaps you've heard--there has been sex and violence and death in storytelling since before Oedipus and the Bible. These are major problematic parts of life, and since time immemorial have been an integral part of mankind's stories.

And I know the MPAA. I'm no fan of it, but it serves, imperfectly, a purpose. It has problems. So do smarmy, snarky documentaries. A modicum of research, performed before blowing off, would have shown you that people have been fighting Jack Valenti and the MPAA over smoking for well over a decade before \"Not Yet Rated\" ever came out--even before Al Gore slammed Hollywood over smoking in 1997 (a study had just been released showing there was more smoking in 1990-1995 movies than there had been in the 70s).

We're talking basic MPAA intent here, which is to alert people, especially parents, to issues they care about. And they care about sex and violence--and smoking. This has nothing to do with your hysterical squeals of \"demonization.\"

Poor child, you can't come up with your own tagline?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Murph1908
June 1, 2009 9:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@geneb5:
You are making my point, and you don't even realize it. My point from the beginning was that the system is illogical, allowing violence and death, but taking a hard line on even the most fleeting sexual encounter, solitary f-bomb, or puff on a cigarette.

Die Hard 4 killed showed how many deaths? Bruce can throw a woman down an elevator shaft, he couldn't say \"Yippie-ky-ay mother fucker\" one time in the climax of the movie?

\"And I know the MPAA. I'm no fan of it, but it serves, imperfectly, a purpose.\"

And I was pointing out the imperfections. For that, you call me confused, and start spewing off a defense of the MPAA like you were in their employ. So either you are the one who is confused, or you are just a sorry, basement-dwelling fuck who's only jollies come from ridiculing people on comment boards.

How's that for a tagline?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
geneb5
May 28, 2009 2:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Murph1908: Yes, you're confused, but it's not the ratings' fault, it's yours. The ratings system is meant to guide moviegoers who may be concerned about certain issues, especially in regards to child-rearing. Ratings are meant to help guide parents in choosing a movie their kids might see. Not many parents want their 13-year-olds to be suddenly exposed to an intense nude sex scene in, say, Wolverine. This would of course, increase adult patronage, but would cost Wolverine its PG rating. Levels of violence are also taken into account.

This is not to say sex is per se bad, or explosions good.

The ratings are simply a guide, and were put into place because of public concerns.

It's a little tedious to have to explain all this, but more info is readily available online, should knowing what you're talking about concern you.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Murph1908
May 28, 2009 6:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@geneb5:

I understand what the rating system is for.

You missed my point entirely, as evidenced by your statement \"Levels of violence are also taken into account.\"

I find it absurd that a reference to smoking is being demonized in a movie that is filled with violence.

I don't smoke, nor am I a proponent of censorship. I am just a logical person who finds the rating system and the morality being imposed by it illogical. All the violence and death are fine, but don't show anyone smoking!

The idiocy is also present in video games. In GTA4, you could kill people in graphic and bloody fashions. But if you dare show sex in any graphic manner, you are AO and lose shelf space.

In Resident Evil, you kill human zombies all day. But oh no, not dog zombies. That's cruelty, and will get your game protested.

It's a little tedious to have to explain all this to you. But there's a documentary called \"This Film is Not Yet Rated\" that's available, if you are concerned about knowing what you are talking about.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Notsewfast
May 28, 2009 3:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@geneb5:

The problem, as I understand it, though is that the ratings system has gone from being a 'guide' to the de facto law for movies. There is little transparency regarding what makes one move 'more adult' than another and if you push the limit too far, you get slapped with an NC-17 rating, which means that theaters will not screen your movie.

Its fine if there is a guide in place for content, I think everyone agrees that that is helpful, but when it is shrouded in mystery, producers and directors can't accurately target their movies because they don't know when they've hit the boundary of unacceptable content.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
korybing
May 28, 2009 4:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Secret Agent Man: Exactly, the ratings system for movies is incredibly ridiculous and varies widely from one movie to the next for the most inane reasons. They've gone from being a \"guide\" to being the difference in millions of dollars for the moviemakers. One slip up and they get an NC-17, which is financial death for a movie. And the rules that determine between R and NC-17 are so often totally arbitrary.

I saw a good documentary about this subject called This Fill Is Not Yet Rated and it was a very interesting film about the process of movie ratings.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jessica Haas
May 28, 2009 8:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@korybing: Thanks for that suggestion -- I've been meaning to see it and it's actually on google video in it's entirety. I'm actually watching it now.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
The Porkchop Express
May 28, 2009 4:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Secret Agent Man: It's like the howard stern fcc issue. George carlin also said it....


Give a list of what can and can't be said/shown/illuded to.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
B1663R
May 28, 2009 12:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

hell, the Simpson's promote smoking in their show all the freaking time!!!

ahh... i'm in flavor country

smooth Laramie cigarettes

not banned yet and been on the air for damn near 20 odd years!!

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
HasPonies!Envy_GitEmSteveDave
May 28, 2009 12:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@B1663R: Yeah, why is it cartoons only show us what real life is/should be like?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MitchEvious
May 28, 2009 2:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@B1663R: \"Bart, you're going to smoke *every* one of these cigarettes\" I think that was the episode where the mob was storing cigarettes in Bart's room.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Rectilinear Propagation
May 28, 2009 1:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'd also like to point out that there are at least two web sites that review movies for parents to help them determine whether or not a movie is appropriate for their children and both point out whether or not there are smoking scenes in them:

[www.kids-in-mind.com]
[www.parentpreviews.com]

Granted these kinds of sites tend to be religious but they will describe offending content. So it's not like you can't look this information up.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
ElizabethD
May 28, 2009 3:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Rectilinear Propagation:

I have always liked \"Screen It\", which I used to use to monitor what movies I'd let our kids see, and continue to use simply for the reviews and some idea of how icky or terrifying the content will be (for myself! LOL).

[www.screenit.com]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
stezton
May 28, 2009 3:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ElizabethD: @ElizabethD:


Those kinds of sites have always made me wonder something. Yes, the writers for those sites watch \"bad\" movies so they can warn parents, but I wonder if after awhile they find themselves ejoying it. ;-)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Rectilinear Propagation
May 28, 2009 6:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@stezton: I also always wondered why they even bother breaking down R-rated films. But then I assume these sites are mainly for parents with young children not parents of 16 and 17 year olds.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Shadowman615
May 28, 2009 1:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

For the love of God, get these people away from the movie industry. Why do so many people think it's their job to sanitize entertainment for everyone else?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
nataku8_e30
May 28, 2009 1:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm looking forward to when they manage to get smoking banned from all movies, then they can focus on keeping characters from eating trans fats in movies.

Seriously, these freaking groups keep winning their battles, but then they have nothing to do, so they keep pushing the line farther and farther.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
William Ellis
May 28, 2009 1:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Ridiculous. As long as bad parents expect the MPAA and government entities to do the dirty work, there will always be someone/thing to blame.

It doesn't take a village. It takes mom and/or dad to say, \"NO!\"

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
edwardso
May 28, 2009 1:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm much more concerned about violence in movies than smoking.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
korybing
May 28, 2009 4:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@edwardso: And yet violence seems to get a pass most of the time. But nudity and swearing! Those are the real threats!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
jwm1314
May 28, 2009 1:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Movies, TV don't make me want to smoke ANYTHING. Even from a young age. Same as they don't want me to kill anyone, get into a dance off, take the blue pill, or get caught in a giant tween comedy romp plot with robots. You know what does? My friends.


I'll just stick with non addictive and non killing pot ;)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
shepd
May 28, 2009 1:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Whenever I hear about this, all I can think about is the end of the movie Escape from LA.



+ Watch video


(@7:50)

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Brazell
May 28, 2009 1:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Anti-Smoking groups are just mad because smoking is cool and they are not.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Chadams28
May 28, 2009 1:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I fear for the free-time our nation's adults are wasting by creating these anti-smoking groups.

Also, where was the furor over \"Good Night & Good Luck\"? Hopefully they don't assume that that film will be gaining cult status with the 18 and under crowd anytime soon.

Reply
1 replies
","
\"user-pic\"
Etoiles
May 28, 2009 1:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm really big on anti-smoking campaigns, but this is a load of stupid crap.

There's smoking in movies because of narrative, genre, and artistic conventions that we as a society first started putting into our films a hundred years ago. Cigarettes are signifiers, not always conscious on part of the filmmakers, and the way they go through a scene helps tell the viewer something about that scene. They're a visual shortcut.

If characters on Saturday morning cartoons start lighting up regularly, THEN we have a problem.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Powerlurker
May 28, 2009 3:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Etoiles:

I know that one of the reasons why smoking was pretty common in old movies was that it was an easy way to solve the directorial issue of \"what do we have the actors do with their hands?\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
johnva
May 28, 2009 3:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Etoiles: Here's the thing, though: it does create an impression of, at the very least, normality for smoking.

I understand that they aren't always doing it to promote smoking. But they're not really trying to promote NOT SMOKING, either. I think they could do that without sacrificing the artistic integrity (ha ha) of their films anymore than they do when they use product placement or place pro-government, pro-war propaganda into film.

It'd be nice to believe that movies are a piece of art created in a vacuum, but I just don't believe that. I think they do have an effect on society and I think it's important for them to be socially responsible when they can be for little sacrifice.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
The Porkchop Express
May 28, 2009 4:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@johnva: waterworld, the smokers were bad people.


XXX- \"told him those things would kill him\" after using a heat seeking missle to kill the smoking bad guy.


not that these are real examples, but they also don't-not promote violence, casual sex, disrespectful behavior towards others, unhealthy food, booze.....I could really go on.


FYI: I love violent movies with all the bad things I just listed, and more. haven't killed, raped, or robbed anyone yet.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
JohnQPublic
May 28, 2009 1:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Having recently watched The Exorcist, it was very shocking to see doctors smoking in a hospital (and all of the smoking in general). Compared to older movies like this, current movies have almost no smoking in them at all.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Atticka
May 28, 2009 2:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Greg []:

Go watch Valkyrie, its full of smoking.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
YOXIM
May 28, 2009 4:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Greg []: I don't blame you. What a smoking pile of crap.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
JohnQPublic
May 29, 2009 4:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@YOXIM: Yeah, Tom Cruise is. I heard the movie wasn't very good either.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
your new nemesis
May 28, 2009 2:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"Which movie studios will cause me to smoke this summer?\" WTF is this crap? Seriously, when did movies trump personal responsibilty and decision making. When I started (yeah yeah, its bad for me, got it) it was because my friend pulled me aside into the woods and shoved a menthol in my hand and said try this, not because i saw some movie star smoking. I don't emulate actors, i'm a sucker for peer pressure.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Atticka
May 28, 2009 2:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Anyone notice how much smoking was going on in the movie Valkyrie? I just saw it the other day and it was pretty blatant with over the top scenes of German officers smoking.

Check it out...you'll see what I mean.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
Rectilinear Propagation
May 28, 2009 6:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Atticka: I saw that movie recently and I didn't notice it. I don't know if it's because it just didn't seem odd or what.

Did any of the main good guys smoke? If not maybe that's why I didn't notice it. Bad guys smoking doesn't count.

(I swear I'm thinking back and I can't recall any smoking scenes.)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Powerlurker
May 28, 2009 3:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Atticka:

Well, if they weren't smoking, how would you know how cool they were?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nakedscience
May 28, 2009 2:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Atticka: I'm going to think that it wasn't over the top, but rather pretty typical for the time and place.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
korybing
May 28, 2009 4:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nakedscience: Yeah exactly. Smoking was much more wide-spread in the 30s and 40s. Go look at anything from that time period; movies, ads, photographs, etc. They're full of smoking. I'm assuming they were trying to be semi-accurate for the time period in that regard.

The fact that the smoking has been noticed as \"over the top\" I would think is more of an indicator to how much less we smoke today, since we're not used to it.

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
TheBursar
May 28, 2009 3:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Well, you cant spell coalition without COAL.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
P_Smith
May 28, 2009 3:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Product placement in moview isn't anything new, and Stylvester Stallone is one of the worst offenders, having taken cigarette money for decades.


[smokefreemovies.ucsf.edu]


[tobaccodocuments.org]


[www.realitycheckny.org]


Every time I see \"Repo Man\", I can't help but smile at all the generic products seen throughout the flick: \"drink\", \"beer\", and other no-name stuff.


As it happens, tonight there's an episode of the X-Files on in syndication, \"Brand X\", where Mulder and Scully go up against Morley Cigarette Company.


[www.imdb.com]


Talk about second hand smoke being lethal....

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
cjones27
May 28, 2009 3:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Look, it's been proven that the only thing second-hand smoke causes is second-hand coolness.


So you're welcome.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
FoxCMK
May 28, 2009 4:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

How about Laurie in the Watchmen movie? Part of what made her character relatable, human, and vulnerable was her addiction to smoking in the graphic novel. Canned for the movie because they producers didn't want to send the \"wrong message.\"

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
korybing
May 28, 2009 6:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@cmkennedy: And here I just thought it was because nobody could figure out those weird cigarettes from the comic...

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
korybing
May 28, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I had no problem avoiding cigarettes when I was a kid. My father smoked them and I thought they were horrible. The only people I knew who smoked that were my age were awful. I knew the difference between media and real life and knew that people smoking in movies did not equal how people should act in real life.

When I got to college, however, all that changed. The high pressure of the classes made me realize that people smoked cigarettes for more reasons than 'coolness', and that it actually helped with stress. THIS was when I had to make tough decisions and resist the pressures to start smoking, not when I was a kid.

In fact, when I was a kid I thought the anti-smoking ads were totally stupid and patronizing. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that those ads have actually turned on some kids to smoking, just to say \"F-U\" to those dumb ads.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
ospreyguy
May 28, 2009 4:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Name 3 people you know that started smoking because they saw it in a movie. Crap. They saw their parents, friends, etc doing it. Or were told from the time they were 3 that it was a sin and horrible and when they hit 12 and found a cig machine bought some just for the rush.

Just as dumb and Joe the Camel made me do it.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
CumaeanSibyl
May 28, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Any time I see someone smoking on screen these days, it's either a bad guy, or a good guy with a cigar. Not sure what the cigar lobby's going for (remember Independence Day?) but cigarettes are a strictly bad-guy vice.

I mean, James Bond used to smoke, and now he doesn't. There's your cultural shift.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Rectilinear Propagation
May 28, 2009 6:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@CumaeanSibyl: Will Smith said in one of his songs that he likes cigars. \"It's for the look though, I don't light it.\"

...Maybe I shouldn't think anything said in Getting Jiggy With It was serious.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
DeadWriter
May 28, 2009 5:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

My friends that work in \"The Industry\" smoke. I know screenwriters that smoke. It's kind of weird, but one part of it is a self perpetuating myth. Kids experience media (movies, music, etc...), romanticize and associate the experiences with the smoking shown and as they grow up experiment and imitate the things that they associate with being adult and with being cool. Some of those kids grow up to make new media, and one part of the cycle continues.

That is just one part of it. While I don't doubt that some investors are invested in cigarette companies, I don't think that they pull the strings. I just don't believe in conspiracy theories. I will if somebody shows me the evidence.

What I do believe in is elevating the media. Write true characters that smoke, swear, and make poor decisions. Just show that their are consequences, don't do it gratuitously, and if possible remove those things from the story if they are not important.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
zombie_batch
May 28, 2009 6:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I hate the people who are ruining movies by trying to pretend smoking doesn't exist. Movies that still show smoking all almost always guaranteed to be better than movies that don't. They're compromising the characters by removing that facet which, if they existed in real life, would surely smoke because that is who they are.

I was a smoker for 6 years, until earlier this year. Movies didn't make me smoke, or any other form of entertainment for that matter. Nor did the lack of tobacco products in entertainment inspire me to quit. Give people some frakking credit, they can make their own decisions regarding tobacco. Hiding it and pretending it doesn't exist is not the solution. Education would be a much more effective method than this garbage.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Jessica Haas
May 28, 2009 6:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It bothers me how they have a young girl doing this, when she can't even legally buy them herself.

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
UrIt
May 28, 2009 6:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

GET OVER YOURSELF!!
my freaking gosh, people KNOW that smoking is bad, if they want to do it, LET THEM. give me a freaking break and stop ruining my favorite movie companies with the crap. geez. go Crusade against something else for a change.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
H3ion
May 28, 2009 8:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

When Harry Potter lights up a blunt, we'll know movies have gone too far.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Dan Seitz
May 28, 2009 8:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Here's my question: considering that we're bombarded, constantly, with anti-smoking and anti-drug campaigns, what about that marketing makes it ineffective, while an actor smoking, which isn't nearly as aggressive (or commonplace) is such a persuasive element?


If we're wasting those public health funds, might be time to, say, review how these anti-smoking groups are spending their money, no?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
ScottCh
May 28, 2009 9:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"Smoking is cool\". Anyone who thinks that will find out otherwise down the road. I watched two close relatives die very painfully because of their smoking \"habits\". They were as hooked as any crack addict.
Nicotine is really the perfect poison. It kills you slowly enough that you'll use it for years before you realize that you can't stop. Then you wind up paying tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for it before you're dead.
Sorry to be such a douche about it, but watching loved ones die just sucks.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Paul Heinrichs
May 28, 2009 11:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Obviously this campaign has been negatively influenced by such charismatic characters as Johnny Knoxville in \"The Ringer\", or Edward Norton in \"The Score\". Note the mention of characters that pretended to be retarded to pull the wool over America's eyes while they furthered their own nefarious schemes of personal gain.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
S-the-K
May 29, 2009 2:29 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I call B.S.! They say that watching someone on screen with a tobacco product has a direct correlation to everyone in the audience to start smoking.

I will bet a dollar that at some point in \"X-Men Origins: Wolverine\" that someone gets sliced across some part of their body by a series of razor sharp blades being held in Wolverine's hand. I'm afraid to see the movie because it will make me run down the street slashing people with a fistful of knives.

I'm afraid to see \"Angels and Demons\" because it will cause me to become a Catholic priest.

Just like when I watched \"Bullitt\" and it make me drive at high speed through the streets of San Francisco.

Just like watching all those Bogart and Bacall films on TCM where everyone chain smoked, that's why I smoke two packs a day. Oh wait! I don't smoke cigarettes despite seeing people on screen smoke. OMG! How can that happen?!

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
PsiCop
June 3, 2009 8:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

There are several reasons why smoking is so common in movies, few of them having anything to do with moviemakers wanting to \"push\" people to smoke.


First, smoking gives the actors and actresses something to do with their hands while delivering their lines.


Second, it also offers added means of expression in addition to using the face and voice.


Third, depending on the era represented in the movie, smoking helps both to establish the time period, and to offer authenticity.


Fourth, there are actors and actresses who like to smoke. Having their characters smoke, allows them to have a few puffs while they're on-set.


So long as all these things are all true, any means ofcoercing the studios to cut the smoking down, will only have a marginal effect.

Reply
");