MPAA does something good? Adds smoking as a reason for an R rating.

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Useful Info, May 11, 2007.

  1. Useful Info

    Useful Info Guest

    You might have thought they'd never try to redeem themselves.

    Find the story at http://Muvy.org
     
    Useful Info, May 11, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Useful Info

    Doug Jacobs Guest

    This is considered "good"? I've got mixed feelings about this...

    While some states have started to really crack down on smoking in public
    places (like California), other places haven't (like Michigan.)

    So, how exactly is something kids are potentially exposed to everyday in
    real-life now considered "R"?

    Are we going to do the same for alcohol usage as well? Note that this
    would make movies like E.T. "R"....
     
    Doug Jacobs, May 11, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. This was the MPAA giving in a little too naively to the pressure groups,
    who'd been trying to grab some big "movement" stunt for headline value
    for several years now:

    Remember the big one from two years ago?:
    "Hey, audiences, show your protest!--Cough whenever an onscreen
    character lights up!"
    (Uh, yeah, and what next?: Go "Moo" every time a character eats red
    meat?) ;)

    Derek Janssen
     
    Derek Janssen, May 11, 2007
    #3
  4. Useful Info

    Film Buff Guest

    does this mean that almost every film from the 20s thru now would be classified "R" because of smoking?
    think about it - almost every Warners film would be classied "R" because someone lit up
    Look at the westerns - almost every old western has someone smoking a pipe or cigar or chewing tobacco
    Just think of - "Casablanca" now "R" rated along with "Maltese Falcon", "Now Voyager"
    Almost all of John Wayne's films would be "R" rated because he lit up
    The list just goes on and on
     
    Film Buff, May 12, 2007
    #4
  5. Useful Info

    Doug Jacobs Guest


    The article said that only new movies would be affected by this, not
    existing ones.

    Otherwise, Popeye and many other cartoons would now be basically considered
    "adult material" due to smoking.

    And any "afterschool specials" (remember those?) about smoking would now,
    ironically, be almost unviewable by the very audience that they were intended
    for.

    As for the "cough when you see a character light up" thing, I hadn't heard
    of that, but it sounds pretty stupid. Am I supposed to yell "OW! My
    leg!" whenever someone shoots a gun? How about going
    "Baum-chika-waa-waa!" whenver there's a sex scene? Eeesh.
     
    Doug Jacobs, May 12, 2007
    #5
  6. Pull out a gun and shoot someone every time a rap song plays.

    Preferably a rapper.
     
    The Great Attractor, May 12, 2007
    #6
  7. Every top posting retard should be ignored in Usenet.

    Rated R for retarded.
     
    The Great Attractor, May 12, 2007
    #7
  8. Useful Info

    Bill Guest

    People with your attitude are the only ones who should be ignored in
    Usenet...thank God for killfiles.
     
    Bill, May 12, 2007
    #8
  9. Useful Info

    Impmon Guest

    Some public area have restricted smoking, smoking outside restricted
    to minimum distance from main entry, and Michigan has one of the
    highest tax on cigs so some progress but not much. I do hope for
    smoke free enviroment because I am not going to pay for my health bill
    because someone has the need to get high at $2.50 per drag.
     
    Impmon, May 12, 2007
    #9
  10. Useful Info

    Impmon Guest

    I was under the impression the new change only applies to new movies
    that haven't been released yet and not retroactive to older movies.
     
    Impmon, May 12, 2007
    #10
  11. Useful Info

    Rich Clark Guest

    Yes, it's not retroactive, and exceptions would also be made for movies like
    "Good Night and Good Luck," where the historical subject of the film smoked
    like a chimney.

    I'm more concerned about historical fiction. Does the director of any movie
    set in the 50s, when everybody smoked all the time, have to choose between
    an automatic R and a loss of realism? Is the MPAA saying "historical
    accuracy is restricted to people over 17?"

    R
     
    Rich Clark, May 12, 2007
    #11
  12. No, they're saying "Thinking for yourself is hard, so let us do it for
    you."
     
    Kimba W. Lion, May 12, 2007
    #12
  13. No, they are saying "Look here, parents, to get a clue about what may be
    found on this disc that your children may be exposed to if you let them
    watch it."

    Some of you people are soooooo stupid.
     
    The Great Attractor, May 12, 2007
    #13
  14. Useful Info

    dgates Guest

    Derek beat me to the idea of comparing this rule to giving an R rating
    when someone eats unhealthy foods. So I'll say: I think the MPAA is
    just concerned that the world doesn't already think America is crazy
    enough.

    I can't think of a scientific way to determine which is worse for a
    kid -- say, ranking these from most to least dangerous:

    - seeing someone shot and killed,
    - hearing someone say certain "bad" words,
    - seeing someone without their clothes on, and
    - watching someone smoke a cigarette.
     
    dgates, May 12, 2007
    #14
  15. Specifically, the idea that an overambitious health group wanted to grab
    media attention for themselves by tilting at unrealistic windmills, and
    throwing the big theatrical press-conference about it...
    Since the original link came from a conspiracy-headline site, most of
    the real story context's been missing--

    But think the PG13/R rating was intended more for *teen* smoking, and
    any depiction where smoking by those not already fully grown adults
    could be in any way damaging...
    Which, the pressure groups hope to argue, constitutes "Mild drug
    use"--which already shows up in ratings info--and try to get THAT media
    argument started again with the FDA.

    (Remember, for cause groups, Public Credibility is the Gold Coin of the
    realm:
    It's mined, bought, sold, refined, stolen, fevered, claim-jumped,
    swindled for, and lusted after.)

    Derek Janssen (and no one makes a chump outta Fred C. Dobbs!)
     
    Derek Janssen, May 12, 2007
    #15
  16. Useful Info

    Bill's News Guest

    <snip>

    Well, if "they" were serious about hiding
    celebrities-paid-to-smoke from easily influenced minds (some of
    whom apparently post here;-) wouldn't it be appropriate to apply
    this standard to ALL films? Why would Bogart/Bacall or Bette
    Davis be less R than say . . . Corey Haim?
     
    Bill's News, May 13, 2007
    #16
  17. Useful Info

    Franky Guest

    Nothing to do with divx AT ALL, but when you get rid of industry and fossil
    fuel ran cars AS WELL as cigarettes, only then could you expect some sort
    of paradise smoke-free society.

    Not to mention the fire in the hills.

    This is coming from someone who kicked up a stink at his workplace
    because everyone and their dog smoked around him. Yes, they ignored
    the laws. Not any more.
     
    Franky, May 13, 2007
    #17
  18. Useful Info

    Impmon Guest

    I'm wondering about that as well. It sounds like a documentary type
    film would be exempt from the rule but fiction even if it takes place
    in a time when smoking was common may get sacked with R rating. Like
    the animated 101 Dalamations with DeVile who smokes in almost every
    single frames of the film.
     
    Impmon, May 13, 2007
    #18
  19. Useful Info

    Impmon Guest

    Next: pigging out at a fast food restaurant will get an R rating.
     
    Impmon, May 13, 2007
    #19
  20. Useful Info

    Morgan Guest

    Is this really a good thing? So your children are uncapable of reading
    literature and listening to others about smoking? As teenagers, do you
    honsetly think they won't sneak into films they "shouldn"t" see? Rent
    movies or go to friend's houses with movies that have "objectionable"
    material in it? I don't want my kids to smoke, but I don't need some big
    brother to tell me what they can and cannot see. Ask yourself, what's next
    to be moved to the rated R category?

    All couples in movies should have seperate beds, do not show toilets, no
    swears, saying anything remotely sexually suggestive earns you an R, kisses
    cannot be open mouthed between heterosexual couples: lips only, homosexuals
    (if they must to be shown at all) earns you an R rating and the only contact
    they can have with each other is a handshake or friendly hug, women cannoy
    say the word pregnant, women cannot be depicted as having a job when they
    have children in the household, men cannot be shown to cry onscreen,
    teenagers engaging in sexual activities (including open-mouthed kissing)
    must die violently in the movie for what they did, all drug refernces will
    be made by a mustachioed man in a red cape and top-hat with an evil sneer,
    if there's murder afoot in the plot then blood and guts cannot be shown
    except in silhouette. Brutally graphic scenes of rape are perfectly fine
    for movies PG through R because it depicts what actually happens to bad
    girls that think too much or have an idea that men and women are equal.

    Yes, the MPAA is looking out for YOUR best interest. It's so clever, you
    don't even have to think!

    Morgan
     
    Morgan, May 14, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.