This country really has turned into one giant.... kitty.
Quote:
• Hollywood tightening up ratings to discourage smoking
• Some activists want automatic R; MPAA says probably not
• Other film-related organizations expressing support
LOS ANGELES, California (Hollywood Reporter) -- Filmmakers now might get an R rating as a thank you for smoking.
The Motion Picture Assn. of America (MPAA) said Thursday that its rating board will consider film depictions of smoking among the criteria for assigning movie ratings.
Anti-tobacco activists have been pressing for an automatic R rating for films with smoking scenes, but MPAA chairman and CEO Dan Glickman rejected the proposal for a more nuanced approach.
"The MPAA film rating system has existed for nearly 40 years as an educational tool for parents to assist them in making decisions about what movies are appropriate for their children," Glickman said. "It is a system that is designed to evolve alongside modern parental concerns."
In line with that evolution, the MPAA ratings board "will now consider smoking as a factor among many other factors, including violence, sexual situations and language, in the rating of films," he said.
"Clearly, smoking is increasingly an unacceptable behavior in our society," Glickman said. "There is broad awareness of smoking as a unique public health concern due to nicotine's highly addictive nature, and no parent wants their child to take up the habit. The appropriate response of the rating system is to give more information to parents on this issue."
Glickman described the move as an extension of the MPAA's practice of factoring underage smoking into the rating of films. The ratings board will ask three questions, he said:
- Is the smoking pervasive?
- Does the film glamorize smoking?
- Is there a historic or other mitigating context?
Also, when a film's rating is affected by the depiction of smoking, the rating will include such phrases as "glamorized smoking" or "pervasive smoking."
"Some have called for a mandatory R rating on all films that contain any smoking," Glickman said. "We do not believe such a step would further the specific goal of providing information to parents on this issue. Unfortunately, the debate on this extreme proposal has become heavily politicized, and many inaccurate statements have been made. While those pushing this proposal are no doubt well-intentioned, it is important that there is an accurate understanding of the declining prevalence of smoking in non-R-rated films."
From July 2004-July 2006, the percentage of films that included "even a fleeting glimpse of smoking" dropped from 60 percent to 52 percent, and 75 percent of those fetched an R rating for other factors, he said.
The Directors Guild of America was among several organizations issuing statements of support for the MPAA moves.
"The DGA supports the MPAA's announced enhancements to the ratings system and applauds their effort to provide parents with increased information on the depiction of smoking in movies," the guild said. "We appreciate that they, like us, are working to find the delicate balance between addressing important health concerns and safeguarding free expression."
The Screen Actors Guild also gave a statement of support.
"As advocates for both creative rights and child-protection legislation, we believe this is a reasonable approach to deal with a serious health issue," SAG deputy national executive director Pamm Fair said.
American Cancer Society CEO John Seffrin said he was pleased by the MPAA's "substantive effort to eliminate tobacco use as a cause of death and disability."
Seffrin cited "evidence that children and youth are particularly vulnerable to the images of tobacco use on movie screens."
But not all the reaction was rosy.
American Legacy Foundation said the new MPAA ratings policy "falls short and fails to implement the meaningful recommendations set forth by numerous organizations." Washington-based ALF states its mission as being "dedicated to a world where young people reject tobacco and anyone can quit."
Hollywood has been under increasing pressure to take steps to ease the purported effect of entertainment content in several areas, from smoking to child obesity. Next week on Capitol Hill, the Senate Commerce Committee begins its examination of the effect violent content has on children.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-West Virginia, is expected to introduce legislation giving the FCC the power to regulate such content -- much as it does indecent content on television. In April, the FCC approved a report on TV violence that asked lawmakers for the requisite enforcement powers.
A Senate-FCC industry task force has been convened to identify ways of forcing content producers to encourage children to eat healthy foods.
when/where did you find this? just curious. I remember hearing some grumblings about it a couple years ago and thought it all blew over, but maybe they are trying again...silly...my opinion is that parents need to be parents...keep on your kids, set and discuss the examples that you want them to follow. Don't expect the TV or movie theater to babysit for you...but thats just me...
__________________ Why yes, I do shoot like a girl! [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
thanks pred for the link. i guess they thought if they resurrected it, it might work this time...some towns are now banning trans fats. the thing with banning things, is it doesn't solve the problem...i know this isn't necessarily banning, but you know what i mean...i still say the root of just about all of these problems, goes back to parents...parents need to be parents. enough said.
__________________ Why yes, I do shoot like a girl! [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
I smock cigaretts and I would love it if they were totaly banned in the U.S
lol, AH, its called willpower!! you can do it, man!! i used to smoke, and quit when i get preggo with my first child. i didn't want them to be affected by my nasty habit either in health or by thinking it was ok to do it. i couldn't very well tell them not to if i was. i'm not a firm believer in "do as i say, not as i do" tactic...
__________________ Why yes, I do shoot like a girl! [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
I oppose this stupidity. It sets a very bad precedent. Once they do it for smoking, then what? Special rating if a movie shows firearm usage? Special rating if they show folks being 'religious'? A special rating for showing alcohol use? Just where does it stop?
I favor letting folks make their own decisions. Same with relying on a 30-second soundbite for 'news' - it just doesn't work in the long run.
I oppose this stupidity. It sets a very bad precedent. Once they do it for smoking, then what? Special rating if a movie shows firearm usage? Special rating if they show folks being 'religious'? A special rating for showing alcohol use? Just where does it stop?
I favor letting folks make their own decisions. Same with relying on a 30-second soundbite for 'news' - it just doesn't work in the long run.
BD,Hollywood thrives on the blood and gore of firearm violence ,I doubt mental defective bad guns will become band.Only good guns that protect and save life ,are band NOW.The last good gun from Hollywood I seen was on Gun Smoke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArkansasHunter
I smock cigaretts and I would love it if they were totaly banned in the U.S
AH,Just look at your ashtray ,it holds a message concerning your lungs.
Your Buddy,Crazy Joe.,
Last edited by JoeLee; 05-12-2007 at 04:00 PM.
Reason: Automerged Doublepost
What about when stars virtually advertised a brand in movies ( Mel Gibson, Bruce Willis ). If you watch a movie with no smoking, you don`t notice it not being there. Same with swearing. I`ve seen films and it wasn`t till afterwards I`ve thought: there was no swearing..
You gonna tell me someone will give a more definitive performance with a cig in there hand?
Off topic, slightly but interesting: I heard on the radio yesterday my country makes a similar amount in excise off tobacco as it does from the fuel excise. Wanna cripple your government? give up the gaspers :P
What do I care? they can rate a picture any way they want. For all I care, they can rate them according to whether they unfairly depict iguanas in an unfavorable light. If it's more information than I want or need, I'll ignore it.
Now if they start trying to BAN them for "glamorized smoking," I'd say they're getting carried away.
The sad part is that in theory, people are let into movies or not based upon their age and the show rating. People use ratings to filter shows and movies that their children can watch. So some cartoons would now be rated R, apparently.
It is already happening that some movies have gotten an R rating for having a religious theme to them. Huh? Traditional religious values, no foul language, and no gratuitous violence is already getting slapped with an R? It should not surprise me that the cigarette Nazis are going after movies with smoking.
That being said, I am a big time tobacco use hater. I don't go to restaurants without a non-smoking section (except for one, and we often get our order to go), and I love smoke free facilities. I live in the middle of "tobacco country". I am all for the freedom to smoke if someone wants to. Their right to smoke ends where my nostrils begin. It is a nasty habit and someone has to be a bonehead to want to do it. BUT, I support someone's right to be such a bonehead.
Cant you see?It's ALL about control ,making ALL think as ONE, Hitler used it in much the same order ,using one against the other until the majority ruled ,old tactic new times. Indoctrination of the young is absolute power in the future ,one step at a time.Wake up get involved fight!
of come on now, we all need to be protected because we obviously are all incapable of thinking for ourselves.
I know that was posted tongue-in-cheek, but to some extent, it is true. Example: I was on a plane this morning with a couple who had two young girls. Now, most of try to do what's best for our kids, right? These two girls were, I'd say 5 & 7 yrs old. They were both grossly overweight (flabby arms, double chins, etc) and on a two hour flight, they consumed 8 bags of honey-roasted peanuts , 7 bags of Ritz Chips, and 3 12oz non-diet sodas between them while mom and dad sat stupidly watching them gorge. As stated earlier, parents need to parent but it isn't happening and a lot of kids are being taught life lessons by Hollywood morons and ad agencies. Just my .02...
Parenting today could land you in jail for being a "Lion Father".I was hard on my three Sons and even harder on my Daughter,and her boy friends.I'd be doing five to ten in today's world for being a Father.
It's called free will. We all have the RIGHT to do what we want, it's up to us. It's going to sound messed up, but we've even got the RIGHT to take someone's life, or our own. Now, we have to deal with the consequences. If I want to go on a rampage and gun down 50 people, I can. If I want to eat 100 cheeseburgers this weekend, I can. If I want to smoke, drink, drive 100mph, the list goes on and one, I can. What equals this out is the consequences I'll have to deal with afterwards. Be it 10 seconds, 10 minutes, or 10 years later. I don't need protection from myself, nor do I appreciate someone trying to impose their will on me, which is exactly what is happening here. However if this is what they want, then they need to protect me from EVERYTHING. Meaning they feed me, they watch me, I don't work, they provide me with everything I need at no cost. If they want to protect me from everything, then so be it. But don't start selectively taking away what I can do.
i used to smoke, and quit when i get preggo with my first child. i didn't want them to be affected by my nasty habit either in health or by thinking it was ok to do it. i couldn't very well tell them not to if i was. i'm not a firm believer in "do as i say, not as i do" tactic...
Indoctrination of the young is absolute power in the future ,one step at a time.Wake up get involved fight!
Joe B Lee.,AKA,Crazy Joe!
