Should tobacco usage scene's be deleted?

[HadleyH]

I agree with many opinions here.
"The question is, do we start trying to protect children from viewing all dangerous or unhealthy activities? Are the movies an appropriate forum for social engineering?".
That'd be nice to know. [huh]

 

[K.D. Lightner]

Joie -- I am sorry to hear about your mother. I lost my best friend to lung cancer and know others who are now suffering with it.

I am totally against censoring movies. Even if it does not involve vintage movies or movies made that depict earlier eras, you still have to consider characterizations.

I guess some of what is going on is that movies have had a history of making cigarette smoking look glamorous and sexy. Think Bogart and Bacall, as mentioned above, Bette Davis exchanging eye-locks and cigs with Paul Hendried in Now Voyager, James Dean in Rebel Without a Cause, Simone Signoret in Room at the Top (and she "French-smoked").

Teenagers want to look "cool" and, for some reason, smoking looks cool to them. They equate it with looking more adult, sophisticated, worldly, sexy, and, if none of the above apply, rebelliousness.

But, kids are going to do the forbidden stuff anyway, don't censor movies. It won't work, anyway.

I think society is trying to over-protect us, especially kids. What next? Will they digitally remove Reese's Pieces from ET because too many kids are now obese?!!?

karol

 

[Hondo]

Like wise I agree, How many here are smokers, ex-smokers or never touch a cigarette? I smoke for over (47) correction 37 years, maybe half a pack a day or less, I quit off and on until I finally said enough (7 years no smoking) was enough; the taste in my mouth, the smell in my hair and clothes the next mornings, not to mention my girlfriends breath. Food tastes a lot better today, I know the damage has been done so I live one day at a time. I want to enjoy it, life smoke free, yet not to censor it in films. The thing is more information needs to be shown, given for free.
I find it so hard to believe in fact it saddens me that with the information out there in the media young people continue to smoke, still think its cool. As a former user, I hate the smell of second hand smoke; walk to any coffee caf?© and the sign says ‚ÄúNo smoking within 20 feet!‚Äù yet you‚Äôll still see people smoking, its time to enforce these little steps (move away 20 ft from door ways) and pass out info on smoking and cancer where ever tobacco is sold.
I also hate to see censorship in films, cartoons (its part of artiest creativity) we or they are not your parents, you want to smoke? You want to damage your body? That’s your right but understand what you are inhaling and the dangers.

 

[Diamondback]

And let me note on my comments, I am a nonsmoker (might consider pipe or cigar once in a long while for very special occasions), but I can't stand the smell of cigarettes myself.

 

[MrNewportCustom]

Joie -- I am sorry to hear about your mother. I lost my best friend to lung cancer and know others who are now suffering with it.

I am totally against censoring movies. Even if it does not involve vintage movies or movies made that depict earlier eras, you still have to consider characterizations.

I guess some of what is going on is that movies have had a history of making cigarette smoking look glamorous and sexy. Think Bogart and Bacall, as mentioned above, Bette Davis exchanging eye-locks and cigs with Paul Hendried in Now Voyager, James Dean in Rebel Without a Cause, Simone Signoret in Room at the Top (and she "French-smoked").

Teenagers want to look "cool" and, for some reason, smoking looks cool to them. They equate it with looking more adult, sophisticated, worldly, sexy, and, if none of the above apply, rebelliousness.

But, kids are going to do the forbidden stuff anyway, don't censor movies. It won't work, anyway.

I think society is trying to over-protect us, especially kids. What next? Will they digitally remove Reese's Pieces from ET because too many kids are now obese?!!?

karol

Joie. Thoughts and prayers for your grandmother and the rest of your family.

Shhhhhh . . . don't give them any ideas!

 

[Joie DeVive]

Thanks for the kind words folks. It means a lot.

As for smoking, never have, never will.

And if you read this and you have been thinking about quitting smoking, please do. At least give it a try, for the people that you love as well as yourself.

 

[Lady Day]

On any other day of my existence I would wholeheartedly agree with you. I am not by means in favor of top down censorship. People should choose what they wish to be exposed to and what they wish their children exposed to and the market will deal with the rest. I am sure I will return to this line of thinking shortly.

But, I am not quite my usual self today. Last night I found out my mother has lung cancer, and it has spread.

If it were within my power to personally destroy every cigarette on this planet right now, I would do so in a heartbeat and without regret. Those blasted things already cost me a grandfather, and now my mother is very ill. Right now it is just a little too close to home, so I hope you will excuse my temporary insanity.

Joie

I know how you feel. My mother died of smoking related cancer in 2005. Even then, I still felt free choice trumps my own feelings. Im not criticizing your feelings on the topic AT ALL, I just know if people who felt threatened by anything harmful wanted it banned, we would all be shutins.

LD

 

[MrNewportCustom]

IMHO PC is a very slippery slope. Who says what thoughts and speach are acceptable? Should it be enforced by industry, NGOs, the courts or the legislature? Should non-PC speach or, better yet, thoughts be actionable?

Once upon a time a person might be judged on their tact, on their ability to discuss issues without giving offense. If you were tactless society would marginalize you. The invitations would cease, you might be moved within the workplace to a position that did not require interaction with clients, and a person would either learn to be more circumspect or would be rejected by polite society.

Today, everyone seems to need an outside arbiter to know what should or should not be said. It is more than thinking twice, today everyone lives in fear that some group or another will take offense. We've even gone so far as suspending and considered charges against kindergarten students for such inappropriate actions as kissing a girl and running away!

Not everyone. We're not in need of an outside arbiter, the outside arbiter is being thrust upon us. And they're not being fair about their arbitration.

As much as I can see the offense taken toward certain actors of olden times being in black face, why is it that the Wayans brothers can make a movie about two guys basically being in white face? I never heard any outcry about that.

I like the Wayans family and their humor - I watched their TV show almost religiously, and Don't Be a Manace to South Central, etc. is a huge favorite that I've watched many, many times - and I've heard that White Chicks is extremely funny and well made, but for reasons based purely on priciple, I refuse to see it.



Lee
_______________________

"In six days the Lord created the heavens and the earth and all the wonders therein. There are some of us who feel that He might have taken just a little more time." - Kinky Friedman

 

[MrNewportCustom]

As for smoking, never have, never will.

Match! Oh, wait. Wrong thread.

My nephew is staying in my home right now, and he smokes. I sometimes suggest that he stop smoking, but in my opinion, it's not my place to try to make up his mind. He follows the rule about keeping it outside.

When I visit friends who smoke, I have no right asking them not to smoke while I'm in their home. On the other hand, they know not to smoke in my home. To me, it's all a matter of courtesy.


Lee

 

[Doh!]

I have a few "younger" (20s and 30s) coworkers who will step outside to smoke if we have drinks after work, and I always try to remind them, "You know those cause cancer... right?"

Honestly, as long as I can't smell it I don't care if people smoke or not. But it seems like a very foolish activity. I'm not sure I've met a smoker yet who hasn't at least tried to quit at some point. So why start in the first place?

 

[vonwotan]

You and I do agree on this topic. My choice of words could have been better. I used "need" where I should have used "want" or "look for", and in place of everyone, "many" or "most."

My impression is that folks on this board tend to be independent and willing to go their own way. And, that we are generally guided by principals that are less common than they once were. And, this is a group still capable of civility and intelligent debate without the personal attacks we see even in public discourse.

Unfortunately, initiatives like these aren't started within the walls of these organizations. Self appointed "experts" or special interest groups lobby based on today's pet cause (one's that bring in money) and lobby groups like the MPAA, local, state and federal government all to impose their opinions on others. Then a large sampling of poorly informed people is polled using a set of very leading questions and these results are touted as hard statistics, etc.

What is most concerning to me is that this process seems to be easier and easier all the time. People are increasingly willing to give up their freedoms for a false sense of security and have to varying degrees abdicated personal and parental responsibility to others.

Not everyone. We're not in need of an outside arbiter, the outside arbiter is being thrust upon us. And they're not being fair about their arbitration.

[/I]

 

[Fletch]

Self appointed "experts" or special interest groups lobby based on today's pet cause (one's that bring in money) and lobby groups like the MPAA, local, state and federal government all to impose their opinions on others. Then a large sampling of poorly informed people is polled using a set of very leading questions and these results are touted as hard statistics, etc.

What is most concerning to me is that this process seems to be easier and easier all the time. People are increasingly willing to give up their freedoms for a false sense of security and have to varying degrees abdicated personal and parental responsibility to others.

It doesn't help that we've pretty much redefined "responsibility" to exclude independent critical thinking. Responsibility today means basically getting in step with The Man.

 

[jake_fink]

Ah, the sound of twisted knickers...

Wow, the moving pictures board seems to be less about movies and more about airing gripes lately.

As Lizzie has already pointed out - this is not about cutting or censoring old films or even forcing new ones to abide by some shiny new standard for clean living, it means simply that along with sex, violence, swearing and all those other things smoking will be a consideration in rating a film - not censoring it. So, if the new Hillary Duff movie has our girl stop giggling long enough to light a smoke said film will not be given a G rating. Big deal. You can still go see it. And what do people expect from an organization as useless, inept and laughable as the MPAA anyway? For decades the Hays Code and the Catholic League of Decency gagged, censored and arbitrarily disallowed all sorts of images, behaviour and language and now those are the good old days and these are the times of rampant undermining of basic freedoms?

I hope you were all at least equally disturbed when, for instance, the Dixie Chicks were being written off.

 

[K.D. Lightner]

Re Dixie Chicks: I certainly was -- very disturbed by it.

karol

 

[Lincsong]

Not giving a movie a "G" rating because it has smoking tobacco????? Now that is idiotic, what's next? Parents are supposed to cover their kids eyes if they see someone walking down the street with a cigarette???:eusa_doh: Kids don't start smoking because they see Ding Bat Superstar smoking they do it because their is a feeling that it's contraband and they should do it to rebel. Just like under 21 drinking. They do it because they're not supposed to do it.

 

[Elaina]

The news article said it was going to be an automatic R rating for smoking, not just losing a G...but brief nudity and excessive sexual content is PG-13. Want to explain that to me?

 

[Joie DeVive]

Match! Oh, wait. Wrong thread.
Lee

Thanks Lee, you made me laugh.

 

[Paisley]

I was sorry to read about your mother, Joie. I can't say there ought to be a law against cigarettes, but it wouldn't hurt my feelings if they all went away tomorrow.

 

[Joie DeVive]

I was sorry to read about your mother, Joie. I can't say there ought to be a law against cigarettes, but it wouldn't hurt my feelings if they all went away tomorrow.

Thank you for your kind words.

I don't want them outlawed either. I just want to personally stomp them into oblivion.
Actually, I am starting to return to sanity now...

 

[Lincsong]

The news article said it was going to be an automatic R rating for smoking, not just losing a G...but brief nudity and excessive sexual content is PG-13. Want to explain that to me?

Oh great, now Pinnochio will be R rated because of all the boys smoking on Pleasure Island.:rage: