Should movies with smoking be "R" rated?

Some are now suggesting that since many PG and PG-13 movies are aimed at youngsters, and since smoking cropping up in these movies more often then the presence of smoking should now result in an "R" rating.

Do you agree?

that's just stupid.

Does this mean ladies can now go topless in smoking sections of bars and restaurants? Men can expose their buttocks and use curse words in loud fashion? Scatological humor and props the order of the day in the workplace smoking shack? All that stuff gives a film an R, does it not?

If it's all the same, I mean!

Whatever the party affilliation of its advocates.

..isn't really a liberal idea either.

to socialize the tobacco market so that there is no longer massive profit in convincing people to smoke. Let the demand of people who want to smoke drive the market, not the ability of marketing campaigns to push tobbacco. This would greatly reduce the number of new smokers without restricting anyones rights.

No chance in Hell of it happening, of course. But it makes a lot of sense. I could make the same case for the oil industry, but that's for an entirely different thread.

seeing their friends smoke, or seeing it in the movies?

What about seeing their parents smoking? Or teachers?

If sex and profanity are cause for an R rating, than a deliberate attempt to poison oneself and look "cool" doing so ought to be as well.

What would constitute a "R-rated" level of smoking?

imbibing wine or other alcoholic beverages have their viewing limited to those 21 and over only?

Didn't think so. This is a dumb idea, we should concentrate our efforts on real problems, not pretend ones like tobacco use.

ACDC counts about 400,000 dead Americans every year because of this shit. That's like seven Vietnam Wars every year. Not all of them are smokers themselves either. That is the same as three full 747s crashing with no survivors every day. Plus, the stuff reeks. I just got back from a few days in MA and I can't tell you how nice it was to go into a bar or restaurant without it smelling like an ashtray. The next county over here in Ohio just went partially smoke free and they will be getting my business.

with it being illegal to smoke in resteraunts, etc. I am a smoker myself and don't care that I can't light up inside (I live in CA, so I'm quite used to it).

That being said, to change historical facts to remove cigarettes from our history is ludicrous and absolutely unnecessary. The indigenous people of this country used tobacco for religious ceremonies, so I guess we should erase the existance of native americans from our history books because they were smokers...

Makes perfect sense to me...

Well noted.

But haven't we pretty much done that already?

If someone smoked in real life and they make a movie about this person then they should have a cigarette or cigar in their mouth and it shouldn't affect the ratings.

Life of Churchill, a documentary on Edward R. Murrow, LBJ, Bette Davis...the list is endless!

because they smoked of course!
:sarcasm:

Changing movie ratings because characters in those movies smoke is such a stupid idea, I can't believe it is even being discussed here. We're wasting bandwidth people!!!!!!!

If you consider the likely original source of this halfassed idea, which is designed to provoke faux outrage, you can then track it back to the Rovian bowels where it likely originated. At that realization, you can give them a big "Pffffffffft!" and get back on track with the issues that really matter.

no one has to waste any more valuable time here discussing this non-issue. Thanks :D

great idea...how else to educate our fellows about bullshit, except to let them see it for what it is???

Until you see it, smell it, step in it, and have to scrape it off your shoe, you won't really appreciate it for what it is...!

still, as a smoker this thread pisses me off because people who do not smoke don't see it as a civil rights issue. If you ban the use of tobacco (prohibition) you're not really protecting anybody, you're just being an asshole. Those of us that smoke know what we're getting ourselves into (anyone who says otherwise is a liar) so I really wish everyone would stop giving us so much crap about it. I don't smoke indoors because it's not legal to in CA and I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with that, so I wish those that forced me into the cold wouldn't also start lecturing me on my actions as well.

Before you know it, they'll start handing out $500 tickets for smoking too close to buildings. Oh wait, they already do that? What's next, jail time?

products--I hear them say "I quit five years ago" as they suck on a nicotine lozenge or chew Nicorette gum, or adjust their patch, or drink their nicotine water. If you ever watch Don Imus on his Anus in the Morning program, that ain't his cud he is chewing, it is Nicorette.

Live, let live, be polite and courteous, and that should mitigate a lot of this stuff, but you are right, it is not enough for some who take it on as a major issue in their lives, usually because they are exposed to someone who is discourteous, or they live in a carbon-monoxide soaked city where no areas for smokers are provided, so they blame the smokers for their coughs and ignore the zillion spewing vehicles on the streets as a potential source. I kinda doubt the smog in LA is caused by Hollywood smokers, after all!

If we are going to single out smokers, we will have to single out all sorts of unhealthy behaviors...perhaps lardasses next? If you have a soft, lumpy butt, a generous waist, an extra chin or two, the police will come to your door and chase you around the block to get your heart rate up, while emptying your cupboard of Ding Dongs and Count Chocula! That's a quick slope downward to genetic testing--oops, you've got a bad gene, report for sterilization next week, and no fucking between now and then--we'll put this chip in your reproductive organs in the meantime, just to make sure...!

True liberals don't go for rules, but see, the GOP, while claiming THEY have the moral high ground in the 'No Rule' game, just LOVES rules as well....rules about who can fly on planes, who can get tax breaks, who is loyal, and who is not, and they try to distract from THEIR great love of rules by tossing these sorts of 'Nanny State' issues out there to get the focus off real freedoms, and on to fake issues.

It all comes down to a big fight about whose rules are better!

dont let your kids out of the house.

Back then there were cigarette commercials, smoking on TV, movies, etc. It was everywhere. Never made me want to smoke. I think this is a dumb idea.

Jesus get a sense of priorities...

What better way to make a group look foolish than to jinn up some stupid horseshit and ascribe it to them? It's a rather Rovian tactic. All you need to do is find someone to fund the PR, find someone else, a useful idiot, to be the spokesperson, and you are off to the races!

That should give you your answer.

including video game violence, "offensive" music lyrics, and a slew of other Tertiary fluff issues that really don't effect an

I think it may or may not be "RW astroturf", but it may also be an attempt to preach to the middle-ground "soccer moms" and "NASCAR dads" in an attempt to dupe them into mis prioritizing for the sake of protecting their kids against something harmful.

Not unlike the RW boogeyman effect e.g. "Terrorists/Communists/Homosexuals are coming to destroy you!!! So vote Republican because they alone can save you (and become rich in the process...)!!!"

appeal to half of US households--SINGLE VOTERS, who can easily get to the polls, but just need a reason to get off their asses and go. A GOOD reason, too--we might want to start with "Here's yer affordable healthcare!"

If there is one issue that I can rail for it is affordable (preferably Social) health care. I love pointing out to more right-leaning friends that we are the only "civilized: (developed) country that has no affordable health care. They are still programmed against it by habit and lack of external input (ie really seeing what is possible.)

I'd love it if someone could get big Pharma and the insurance companies out of my (and my coutry's) immediate health care needs and to stop looking for profits where there is a more pressing issue of simple health care as a human right.

This as well as the war, corporate corruption, and a slew of other issues that really effect the bottom line are most important.

To hell with this poofy crap issues game.

And the shit's starting to creep back into television too. If it's illegal for those bastards to advertise, then that should mean more than just the obvious 30 second ad. Product placement IS advertising and in some movies it's just so fucking obvious.

To clarify though, I don't believe it's an R rating issue. It just isn't neccessary to be in the movie. Unless the subject of the movie is lung cancer. Then there would be some relevancy to the storyline.

Smoking a cigarette in a movie is not advertising. It's a reflection of reality.

It's product placement. In some movies, it's so blatantly fucking obvious. Smoking in every goddamn scene. If that's "reality" then I want to see the character in chemo by the end of the film.

The death merchants certainly aren't the only company who do this. But they are the only one whose product KILLS when used as intended. And probably the only one legally banned from TV and billboard ads that gets away with this shit, because a Republican controlled congress sure as Hell won't pull the plug on one of their biggest cash cows.

Dude you sound the abstinence zealots who tell kids they're gonna get AIDS if they even think about screwing.

who happened to smoke cigarettes? Are we editing the real stories about historical figures to remove unimportant facts like whether or not someone smoked cigarettes?

Something you can buy that finds it's way into a movie isn't always subliminal advertisement, don't fall into that liberal trap! This issue is stupid and not worthy of my time, this is the last time I'm posting in this thread!

Geez.... get a grip people!

(Note: AC2k4, this isn't necessarily directed only at you, your post is just the one I opted to "reply" to :) )

"It just isn't neccessary to be in the movie. Unless the subject of the movie is lung cancer. Then there would be some relevancy to the storyline."

Millions of people smoke. Why should a screenwriter or director who believes that smoking is important to the depiction of certain characters, either historical or fictional, not have that person smoke? There are plenty of coming of age movies where a young person is shown trying his/her first cigarette. Sometimes they hack and cough and hate them, sometimes they don't. Both approaches are perfectly legitimate depictions of reality.

By the way, cigarette advertising is not generally barred. It is barred on broadcast television. But that doesn't mean its not allowed in movies, even as a product placement and it doesn't mean its not allowed when those movies are shown on TV unless a further payment is being to the broadcaster by the tobacco company.

onenote

then!!! Disappointing a wide variety of southwest Asian, and Asian teens, to say nothing of those kids who like their style and their recreational pursuits!

Unload all the guns in film, too--go back to slapping evildoers across the face with a glove!

And the product placements for high fat products, like Hagen Daz ice cream--off with them, digitally insert some broccoli in that picture...mmmmmmmm!

Seriously, movie making is a private business, and if people do not like the product placement in the crap coming out of Hollywood, the best way to stop it is to vote with your feet. DON'T ATTEND. Eschew the experience! Go get an indy pic at the Blockbuster, or stay home and watch IFC.

I don't go to the films much anymore, it is a rare occasion that will get me to the theater. Most of the crap is available on cable within a year, and I can multitask, or change the channel, and I don't have to listen to a bunch of assholes giving me running commentary while I ruminate on the fact that my wallet is so much lighter....the theaters have lost me, because so much of their stuff just sucks, or isn't good ENOUGH for the price of a ticket! I could endure product placement if the scripts were halfway good, but most of them stink on ice...

that is really not important getting ready to become an issue.

I was just curious as to the feeling around here.

:sarcasm: :eyes:

and would the leading voices be the same that want to control content over the TV extending to cable? If you catch the Decency in Media hearing from last week, it will be clear who those "family groups" are.

:grr:

Really now...aren't there worse ills of our society to focus on? Beating up on we folks who happen to smoke is so very easy, and just wrong. Enough with the stigmas!

Insulating the young from images of smoking and such just makes these "forbidden fruits" more tempting. Why not show the world as it is, and teach our kids to use their own brains for smart choices instead? Why not? Because parenting is a helluva lot easier if you get other people to rate things for you...the same way that too many teachers in this country are responsible for making-up for lack of their pupils' preparation for life.

And at a minimum it should be PG-13.

It's one thing with a movie like "Good Night & Good Luck" where everyone seemed to smoke in it but then again they were doing a biographical piece about a time period where everyone actually did smoke.

But I think there is no need to have any smoking in the movies especially if it's a movie geared towards younger children/teenagers. The only reason they have it is because the tobacco manufactorers pay for placement even if the brand is undetectable. The concept of the cool kids lighting a smoke in the movie is much more powerful even if no brand is associated with it.

And yes, it's a historical fact that Murrow was a chain smoker. But does the movie also mention that he died of lung cancer? I'm guessing not.

If you google it, there was an article where Clooney talked about the smoking in the movie. STraitham said he ended up going with hand-rolled because they had less chemicals in them then regular cigerettes.

It is a moment in time, a snippet of history. Murrow went on after the film ends...

You'd need a movie a hundred times the length of that work to cover his life, if that is what you are going for.

Murrow (his real first name was Egbert) actually died of lung cancer.
With TIVo we are seeing more and more product placement on TV, I guess movies do it also.

A SPACE ODDESSEY, when the guy calls the kid on the AT and T picture phone from space, and it only costs a buck and change....

smoking appears in movies. It is a tried and true convention of "coming of age" movies for a young character to be depicted trying their first cigarette. Such scenes appeared in movies long before product placements became common and still will occur even if product placements were barred. Its one thing to bar the payment of consideration by a tobacco company for the placement of a scene showing cigarette use (although I would not advocate for such a bar), something quite different to simply try to regulate the depiction of tobacco use generally. Why not alcoholic beverages? Unsafe driving? Reckless use of firearms?

onenote

With all the angry ranting about how the kids today need to be disciplined, monitored, surveilled, and even beaten, I can't understand why those same parents want to "protect" their kids from "bad words" and titty.

Abolish the ratings. Let parents look up reviews of the movies on www.DontTrustYourKids.com or www.TittyWillMakeYourKidsSexMonsters.com or something like it.

--p!

And a boob on screen should still be a "G".

frontal nudity should be a PG

nudity with sex should be an R, as should just about any graphic or gratuitous violence.

Smoking? Come on, you can see that on any street corner.


Out kids are exposed to way too little beautiful, loving sex, way too much titillating, sleazy sex and way too much violence, IMO. I don't really think movies have much effect on whether people start smoking or not.

and was intirgued by the thought. It certainly stirred conversation here. :)

I submit that if most kids wanted to see someone smoking, they just have to go outside--if that far.

I'm from the 50's and 60's--everybody smoked everywhere. I grew up with candy cigarettes, TV commercials, and curiously enough I don't smoke.

I wish the nanny state would just back off and let us live our own lives.

next thing you'll be complaining about will be the idea of putting warning stickers on snakes rather than teaching kids to leave snakes alone.

(Yes, I am being facetious)

Isn't that why they call them smokers?:evilgrin: