Movie Smoking may lead to R Rating

[Bearcat729]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121485,00.html



This is just stupid. I don't think that people smoke because they see it happen on a movie screen. Then again as a non smoker I don't know why anyone started smoking.

[albionmoonlight]

I thought that the rating system was voluntary. I did not think that Congress had anything to do with it. I might be wrong.

If it is voluntary and Congress starts to monkey with it, you may just see producers choose not to go with the ratings system anymore. (And if Congress tries to make that mandatory, I see some huge First Amendment issues lying in the background).

[Ksyrup]

What makes teenage smoking so much more objectionable than teenage drinking?

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Bearcat729

I don't think that people smoke because they see it happen on a movie screen.

While I agree with your first conclusion, I think the above is a dangerous type of argument that always shows up in this sort of policy debate.

I believe (without even a shread of proof to back this up, incidentally) than plenty of people do, indeed, start smoking because they see it happen on a movie screen.

No, they don't see a movie and say to themselves "hey, that's what I want to do!" Of course not. But if they see, time and time again, characters who are "cool" or "tough" or admirable in other ways, and those characters smoke as part of what makes them sympathetic... it's bound to catch on. Films can send all sort of signals, and among them they can certainly send signals that smoking is an adult, mature, rebellious, sexy, interesting, and cool thing to do. Any one movie probably has zero effect. Watch twenty of them over the course of a few formative years -- and I think it's not only possible, but downright likely that plenty of minds will have had their attitudes about smoking adjusted.

I think smoking in movies contributes to smoking in society.

Then, there's a separate matter of whether this potential connection merits intrusion by either the government or by other pseudo-regulatory entities.

[JesterBlaze]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

No, they don't see a movie and say to themselves "hey, that's what I want to do!" Of course not. But if they see, time and time again, characters who are "cool" or "tough" or admirable in other ways, and those characters smoke as part of what makes them sympathetic... it's bound to catch on.

I think it's a combo of what you've said and other factors including environment.

When I was younger and most of my age group started smoking I was concentrating on basketball a lot and heard smoking could negatively effect my play. I didn't smoke/drink due to my focus being somewhere else (basketball) but every one of my friends did and since we all thought smoking was "nasty" a couple months prior it was an obvious case of peer suggestion... or an incredible coincidence.

[KWhit]

I am amazed at some of the things that can trigger an R or worse rating. You can have as much violence as you want, bot as soon as you show a boobie it's an R rating. Now smoking may be added to the list of messed up priorities.

[stevew]

I think they need to look at the "everything but" PG-13's first. As in the movies that are R rated in nature, but cut out just enough to get that PG-13.

[Suicane75]

Get rid of the damn rating system altogether....get rid of the damn rating system.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I thought that the rating system was voluntary. I did not think that Congress had anything to do with it. I might be wrong.

If it is voluntary and Congress starts to monkey with it, you may just see producers choose not to go with the ratings system anymore. (And if Congress tries to make that mandatory, I see some huge First Amendment issues lying in the background).

it's mandatory, how many unrated movies have you seen in theatres It's no different than stupid game ratings, or tv show ratings. There's no 1st amendment issues here, it's no different than the board saying if you drop an F bomb then it's a PG-13 minimum or whatever.

[Suicane75]

Originally Posted by Chubby

it's mandatory, how many unrated movies have you seen in theatres It's no different than stupid game ratings, or tv show ratings. There's no 1st amendment issues here, it's no different than the board saying if you drop an F bomb then it's a PG-13 minimum or whatever.

It isn't mandatory, but you can't get a movie in the theatres without it thanks to some sort of bizzare MPAA/Theatre chain monopoly. I also believe that you have to pay to get a rating. It's all nonsensical bullcrap.

[albionmoonlight]

I did not realize that it was mandatory. I thought that it was through the MPAA (which I thought was a private entitiy). Thanks for the heads up.

If there is not a First Amendment issue involved in the government saying:

"You have produced speech that we have decided is offensive. Therefore, we are going to force you to add to your speech a notice that will 1.) Indicate that what you are saying is wrong and bad, and 2.) make your speech less commercially valuable "

then there should be.

Any First Amendment guys out there that can fill us in?

[Chubby]

well even if it isn't technically mandatory, it essentially is as stated above. the MPAA IS dumb with some of those rules for mandatory ratings and whatnot.

albion - how is it any different than ratings on cd's, or video games, or tv shows? Now I'm all for having porn showing in theatres right next to A Bug's Life but that won't happen

[Joe Canadian]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

While I agree with your first conclusion, I think the above is a dangerous type of argument that always shows up in this sort of policy debate.

I believe (without even a shread of proof to back this up, incidentally) than plenty of people do, indeed, start smoking because they see it happen on a movie screen.

No, they don't see a movie and say to themselves "hey, that's what I want to do!" Of course not. But if they see, time and time again, characters who are "cool" or "tough" or admirable in other ways, and those characters smoke as part of what makes them sympathetic... it's bound to catch on. Films can send all sort of signals, and among them they can certainly send signals that smoking is an adult, mature, rebellious, sexy, interesting, and cool thing to do. Any one movie probably has zero effect. Watch twenty of them over the course of a few formative years -- and I think it's not only possible, but downright likely that plenty of minds will have had their attitudes about smoking adjusted.

I think smoking in movies contributes to smoking in society.

Then, there's a separate matter of whether this potential connection merits intrusion by either the government or by other pseudo-regulatory entities.

I do agree with you, and 20 years ago this argument would make total sence in the context of movie ratings. But now, IMO, not so much... if people pick up smoking now... THEY ARE COMPLETE MORONS! If people take offence to this because they smoke, I don't care.

-End very short rant-

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by Joe Canadian

I do agree with you, and 20 years ago this argument would make total sence in the context of movie ratings. But now, IMO, not so much... if people pick up smoking now... THEY ARE COMPLETE MORONS! If people take offence to this because they smoke, I don't care.

-End very short rant-

Yeah. It's basically natural selection in a different form. Maybe smoking in movies will help further the cause of eliminating complete idiots from the human species.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by Chubby

it's mandatory, how many unrated movies have you seen in theatres

Y Tu Mamá También, for one.
There was the Aronofsky movie a couple of years back whose title has slipped my mind.

I agree, though, that a combination of market factors and theater policy makes unrated movies generally impractical.

[Telle]

I think my biggest issue with this is that smoking is something that you can see in public in every-day life. There's people smoking in restaurants, outside of office buildings, walking down the street, driving in their cars, etc. However, in most cases you don't just walk down the street and see bared breasts, people going at it, graphic violence, etc. I suppose cursing kind of blurs this line a little, but I think most areas have laws regarding extensive use of obscene language in public.

So, I just find it really odd that they want to make the view portrayed by movies much more restrictive than that of real life.

[sabotai]

Remember people, kids can see cars exploding, people getting the crap kicked out of them and totally unrealistic stunts...just as long as no one is smoking, because of all of those things, it's the smoking that kids will do.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

What makes teenage smoking so much more objectionable than teenage drinking?

Because second-hand smoke is the #1 killer in this country! DUH!

And that smokers are "total idiots"...

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I believe (without even a shread of proof to back this up, incidentally) than plenty of people do, indeed, start smoking because they see it happen on a movie screen.

No, they don't see a movie and say to themselves "hey, that's what I want to do!" Of course not. But if they see, time and time again, characters who are "cool" or "tough" or admirable in other ways, and those characters smoke as part of what makes them sympathetic... it's bound to catch on. Films can send all sort of signals, and among them they can certainly send signals that smoking is an adult, mature, rebellious, sexy, interesting, and cool thing to do.

You have to wonder what kind of logic 'Anti-Smoking Activists' are using in this situation. Quik's statement rings true enough, and I imagine it is in tune with what these people are thinking....but if it is watching 'cool', 'tough' characters in adult situations that attracts youngsters to cigarettes, is it really the best defense to make it so that smoking can only be seen in movies that glorify exactly those things? If it's the sexy rebellion that keeps the teens clammoring for tar, the BEST possible scenario for keeping your 14 yr old clean would involve the Wiggles and Dora the Explorer plowing through cartons of Lucky Strikes while Johnny Depp waxes poetically about the world's inability to understand both his deep emotions, and his lifelong hatred of smoking. Truth be told, the best way to keep your teen from smoking would be to sit them down for a long earnest discussion about how you and mom dig your Kools.

Everything that supposedly attracts young teens to cigarettes, is almost certainly what attracts them to 'R' rated movies. The MPAA is second only to the tobacco industry when it comes to pushing adult content on children, and once your child can leave the house on their own you have to expect that they are going to view as much 'mature programming' as they so desire. Linking these two industries in an attempt to protect our children just sounds like about the biggest non-solution ever.

My hope is that it could somehow lead to surreal, 'R' rated, feature-length promotional films for RJ Reynolds, where small children, barnyard animals, and B-level celebrities are all constantly smoking and prominently displaying cigarette logos while Shannon Tweed solves her roommate's murder with the help of a mysterious stranger.

[QuikSand]

Great post.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Telle

There's people smoking in restaurants

Not here in California.