Comments on: ‘Rated R for strong graphic smoking…’

By: Jim (Swaziland)

Jim (Swaziland) — Sun, 13 May 2007 18:02:15 +0000

Just curious, are they saying “mandatory R” for smoking, are you coloring it a bit for us?

At any rate, many people don’t use logic to make their decisions, but just follow the “logic” of their own interet. So am i surprised to hear this? No.. not at all.

However, i agree that glamorizing smoking can encourage kids to do it. Heck… this is how the tobacco industry has made “loyal” customers since the turn of the century. Think of all the movies from the 40’s and 50’s.
Seems i also remember reading somewhere that women smoking was part of the picture of the “liberated” women back in the 20’s.
Point being, people do (and buy) what they think is cool… if this is not true then I dont know HOW advertisers have made their millions over the years.

By: Jamahl Epsicokhan

Jamahl Epsicokhan — Mon, 14 May 2007 15:03:44 +0000

There will not be mandatory R ratings for smoking. That’s what some critics wanted, but the MPAA was actually sensible in this regard. Whether there could be R ratings for pervasive and/or glamorized smoking remains to be seen. It wasn’t exactly clear from what I’d read.

That said, I can see the argument that glamorized smoking could be dangerous to kids, but can you actually think of an instance in a recent movie where smoking was “glamorized”? What does that mean? Movies are about characters. If a character loves to smoke, that’s a characteristic. It doesn’t mean the movie is endorsing it. I don’t know how/if the MPAA will make this distinction.

Perhaps a movie could “glorify” smoking in the same way that it “glorifies” violence, but that seems unlikely to me. Smoking is a background-noise aspect of characters in movies. And until smoking is removed from our society, I see no reason why it should be removed from movies. Some people smoke, and if a movie shows that truth, that’s morally neutral. That’s not the same thing as advertising to kids.

By: Abel

Abel — Fri, 25 May 2007 01:01:43 +0000

a bad job

By: Stef

Stef — Fri, 25 May 2007 07:49:22 +0000

Here in the UK we have some pretty ‘odd’ censorship laws (to be fair, many were recently dragged out of the 1970s).
Nunchucks for example where not allowed to seen on screen for many years (Big cuts in Bruce lee films).

Headbutts are a no no for younger audiences, so we have the comical Judge Dredd with people being shot, robots ripping arms and legs off Judges, but they can’t show Hershy headbutting Joan Chen in the fight scene on the old VHS version, as that will bring the rating up to an 18 certificate. And to add insult to injury, the VHS version also contains the making of the film, where you see 2 versions of the headbutt UNCENSORED. Utter madness.

By: Abraham

Abraham — Sat, 26 May 2007 03:47:37 +0000

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush

By: Ada

Ada — Sat, 26 May 2007 12:46:14 +0000

A bird may be known by its flight

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 13:16:59 +0000

Problem is, you mention the over-the-topness of rating smoking scenes, but pass over the fact that they rate “sexual content”. Now everything you say about smoking - it’s not illegal, people really do it, etc - can be said about sex too, with the additional point that sex is not bad for you and isn’t something that it would be good to discourage. So, given that “sexual content” earns a rating, why would it be odd for smoking to do so? Or, conversely, if smoking shouldn’t earn a rating, does that mean that “sexual content” shouldn’t do so either?

By: exsmoker

exsmoker — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 13:16:48 +0000

Hello All,

I was reading around some of the posts here and I found interesting things that you guys talk about, I just made a blog about quitting smoking resources and ideas that you might want to check out.
If someone is interested in this topic just go to; http://endthehabitnow.blogspot.com and let me know what you think.
Thanks in advance.