Badmovies.org Forum

Movies => Bad Movies => Topic started by: SaintMort on May 11, 2007, 04:07:44 PM



Title: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: SaintMort on May 11, 2007, 04:07:44 PM
The MPAA have announced that smoking will effect the rating of a movie


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: Mr_Vindictive on May 11, 2007, 04:23:36 PM
Just recently read something along those lines on CNN.  Right now, it's not anything that the MPAA is certain on, but they have said that they MAY take smoking into consideration when rating a film.

I'm a non-smoker and I do not condone smoking, but this is down right ridiculous. 


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: Doc Daneeka on May 11, 2007, 04:26:06 PM
Honestly I'm surprised it isn't already, it Is kind of "drug use".

Shouldn't this be in press releases?


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: flackbait on May 11, 2007, 04:27:16 PM
I don't smoke either, but this is ridiculous. Next thing ya know they'll start saying drinking affects the rating of the movie.


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: Torgo on May 11, 2007, 04:38:41 PM
And yet chopping someone's head off can be allowed in a PG-13 movie......................

Man, the MPAA is pointless.


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: RCMerchant on May 11, 2007, 06:24:11 PM
 Won't be long now.....
(http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/5527/mys**tjt9.jpg)







    I drew this for the LAWTON DEPOT in APRIL 13,1994...scarey how close were are to this....just call me R.C.Welles
                   This has been another shamless plug courtsy of me!


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: Raffine on May 11, 2007, 07:47:18 PM
Your art is great, RC.  :thumbup:

Post more!


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: Dennis on May 11, 2007, 08:41:37 PM
 I used to smoke, been a non-smoker for about 4 years now, but I think that smokers, at least in California, are a persecuted bunch, in some cities here it is now illegal to smoke in your car or in your yard, and a law is being considered in one Southern California city that would make it a crime to smoke in your own home because there may be a chance that your second hand smoke may escape your house in a dense enough concentration to penetrate your neighbor's home and possibly do him harm. I'm all in favor of smokers not inflicting their habit on others but this is getting ridiculous, what's next, the death penalty for lighting up a cigarette in your own home.


RC, I always enjoy your drawings, they're great stuff.


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: Neville on May 12, 2007, 08:59:00 AM
Given the flak the MPAA is taking in the last years and how illogical some their rating scales seem to be, maybe it is the time for another rating system, just as when the Hays system was replaced by the MPAA.

Hell, if it depended on me the whole rating system would be dismanteled, but then we'll probably have a different system per state or something like that. I personally like the rating system in my country, Spain, but it is very liberal even for European standards, so it would sparkle controversies in other places. Basically the Ministery of Culture issues a rate together with the distribution permit. All porn is forbidden for people under 18, and the rest of movies are classified "Not recommended for people under 18, 13 or 7 years old". But there are no real restrictions, as "recommendations" are just that, a warning to concerned parents.

If you want to learn more about the MPAA, I found the documentary "This film is not yet rated" very interesting.


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: rebel_1812 on May 12, 2007, 02:20:53 PM
I used to smoke, been a non-smoker for about 4 years now, but I think that smokers, at least in California, are a persecuted bunch, in some cities here it is now illegal to smoke in your car or in your yard, and a law is being considered in one Southern California city that would make it a crime to smoke in your own home because there may be a chance that your second hand smoke may escape your house in a dense enough concentration to penetrate your neighbor's home and possibly do him harm. I'm all in favor of smokers not inflicting their habit on others but this is getting ridiculous, what's next, the death penalty for lighting up a cigarette in your own home.


RC, I always enjoy your drawings, they're great stuff.

i wonder if industries that pollute the air get such stiff laws placed on them.  Or how about all the dangerous chemicals in cars, should be place strict laws on them.  I see alot of hypocracy in this anti-smoking campaign. 


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: RCMerchant on May 12, 2007, 03:52:51 PM
 As a smoker,I'm p**sed. You can walk into a bar and get sh#tfaced,get in your car (with it's polluting exhaust),and ,stop at some fastfood garbage vendor,and run into some poor shmuck crossing the street. Yet standing out on the sidewalk and lighting up a cig is WRONG??? Whatta f#ck??? This same goverment will put a machine gun in an 18 year olds hand and train them to kill ,,but he can't smoke on the streets of the country he's fighting for? Can they smoke in Iraq? Or in Communist China? I KNOW Castro smokes! This is SUPPOSED to be the land of the FREE!  :hot: How can the US goverment,who polluted the earth with nuculer weapons,experment on people with LSD,and God knows what else,point their bloody,hypicritical fingers at CIGERETTE SMOKERS? Do they not have more important issues to deal with?
  I know this doesn't make a lotta sense,but I tend to babble mindlessly when I start to think.....uh...I need a cigerette...


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: Neville on May 12, 2007, 04:08:37 PM
The addict...  :buggedout: I mean, RCMerchant is right  :teddyr:. As far as the smoke doesn't bother other people (and how it could while smoking in your car / home or in a sidewalk?), it shouldn't be a problem. Luckily, I don't think cops will spend much time enforcing this kind of legislation.


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: venomx on May 12, 2007, 07:57:33 PM
RCMerchant you draw very good! I also like to draw. ... About the topic tho ... Your very right I cant get over the laws now days. How things are going now next thing you know different color clothes will be illegal. This IS SUPPOSED to be the land of the FREE like you said , but it looks like everyday it gets worst and worst.

"The MPAA have announced that smoking will effect the rating of a movie" thats so crazy! WTF?


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: rebel_1812 on May 12, 2007, 08:16:18 PM
the problem is the land of the free has turned into the nanny state(i.e. treating adults like children).  So Remeber 'Good little boys and girls don't smoke'.


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: Allhallowsday on May 12, 2007, 09:20:05 PM
And yet chopping someone's head off can be allowed in a PG-13 movie......................

Man, the MPAA is pointless.
Well said; I applaud you.  Personally, I don't give a rat's ass since any MPAA rating ain't keepin' me out of the theatre. 

This is like what I'd heard about Disney's plans to digitally remove all smoking from their films, particularly the classic shorts.  I don't know if that's true, but if it is, it's more mind police mayhem. 


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: Allhallowsday on May 12, 2007, 09:30:27 PM
   I drew this for the LAWTON DEPOT in APRIL 13,1994...scarey how close were are to this....just call me R.C.Welles
I especially like BIG MORON IS WATCHING YOU!!!  What's next . . . Forced jogging?  :bouncegiggle:


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: The Burgomaster on May 13, 2007, 02:15:01 PM
Boy, with all the smoking and drinking Humphrey Bogart used to do, all of his movies mayl need to be re-released with an "R" rating . . .


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: BoyScoutKevin on May 17, 2007, 05:23:46 AM
Well, if you believe the studies, 15% of children take up smoking, because they have seen a character smoke in a movie.

And Humphrey Bogart is a good reason to not take  up smoking, as his death, by throat cancer, was brought upon by his smoking. How many more of his films would we have enjoyed, if he had not smoked.


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: RCMerchant on May 17, 2007, 05:28:02 AM
I guess Cheech and Chong movies would be the equivalent of  substance abuse porno! :teddyr:


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: DodgingGrunge on May 17, 2007, 07:23:06 AM
And, FYI? That whole "second hand smoking" crap? Pure fantasy. You are only affected if you are a cigarette smoker yourself. If you are not, being around other smokers will not affect your health drastically as many anti-smoking propagandists have tried to con you into believing. The whole idea of second-hand smoke is kind of like saying, if you hang around fat people, you'll become fat yourself, even if you don't eat whatever they're eating that's making them so large.

I'm going to keep this brief because if my girlfriend finds me shouting obscenities at the computer screen I'll be bludgeoned and dragged away.

Most of this mania has to do with the 2007 report from the Surgeon General.  The report follows Aristotelean thinking:   Smoking kills people --> Second hand smoke is the same thing as mainstream smoke --> Second hand smoke kills people.  First of all, very little information is available on second hand smoke.  So the report makes use of "the more extensive literature on active smoking and disease" as well as studies conducted on fetuses of smoking mothers.  There are numerous flaws to this approach, but I'll address the largest:  The concentration of Respirable Suspended Particles (RSPs) a smoker receives is significantly greater than that of an "at risk" second hand smoker.  Independent studies by Covance and Oak Ridge National Laboratories determined this to be about 1000:1.  So in essence, a pack-a-day smoker will acquire 1000 times the carcinogenic fury of tobacco smoke than a nonsmoker who lives or works around heavy smokers.  The SG did not make use of either report and instead ceded that "a specific quantitative definition of second hand smoke cannot be offered."  Incidentally, the SG does more directly contradict its chain of reasoning by admitting that the concentration of the smoke "is rapidly diluted as it travels away from the burning cigarette."

I am a smoker.  I love smoking.  I think there is a beauty (however insidious) in the culture of smoking, cinema and otherwise.  I just wish the people making laws and policy had better knowledge of their subjects.  Or, that failing, I wish government-issued reports were both scientific and factual in nature.  In case you were wondering, a major source of funding behind the 2007 report was Johnson & Johnson, a company which owns numerous "quitting" products like Nicoderm.  I suspect this investment has done well for them.  :teddyr:


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: Jack on May 17, 2007, 08:30:51 AM
This anti-smoking crap is really destructive.  Nine years ago I was having a lot of problems with feeling dizzy and worrying that I might pass out.  I went to a doctor and he told me to quit smoking.  So for 9 years my life was really negatively affected by this problem.  Then I finally went to another doctor who wasn't a member of the tobacco taliban and he diagnosed me with general anxiety disorder, gave me some pills, and now I'm 100% better.  Nine freakin' years unable to enjoy life as I normally did because some freakin' doctor wanted to blame everything on smoking.

 


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: ulthar on May 17, 2007, 09:01:30 AM

I'm going to keep this brief because if my girlfriend finds me shouting obscenities at the computer screen I'll be bludgeoned and dragged away.

Independent studies by Covance and Oak Ridge National Laboratories determined this to be about 1000:1. 


Wasn't there also a report several years ago released by the World Health Organization that showed rather conclusively that the 'scare' about second hand smoke was, uh, smoke and mirrors?

This, like so many other issues in the US these days, is more politics than science.


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: DodgingGrunge on May 17, 2007, 10:13:48 AM
Wasn't there also a report several years ago released by the World Health Organization that showed rather conclusively that the 'scare' about second hand smoke was, uh, smoke and mirrors?


WHO is actively against both smoking and secondhand smoke.  WHO published a SHS (secondhand smoke) report in 1998 with 1542 control subjects and 650 cancer patients.  Ironically, the report determined there was no statistically significant increase in risk associated with nonsmokers living or working among smokers.  And as a further blow, they found an associated decrease in lung cancer risks from children of smoking parents (22%)!  These were considered anomalous and WHO's press release instead focused on previously conducted meta analysis by the British Medial Journal (1997)!  WHO concluded, "From ... the scientific evidence emerges a clear global scientific consensus passive smoking does cause lung cancer and other diseases."  You know, just not in their study.   :teddyr:

For a good time, check out WHO's press release here:  http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-29.html  Oh lordie, hehehehe.


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: ghouck on May 17, 2007, 02:57:43 PM
A couple things, First: Jack, , , spread the wealth man, , You owe it to the group, your peers, to share those pills. We'll start another thread where people can list their address.

Second, as a former smoker (smoked for 20 years, quit 2-1/2 ago), I now hate smoke, , so know what I do? I DON'T GO WHERE THERE IS SMOKE. . it was a tough one, but I figured it out all on my own. I really do miss it, as I did enjoy it, but I'm glad I quit, and I'm not going back. That said, I do complain when people are smoking at the door of a building I'm going into or other instances that are unavoidable, , but the whole "I am a mobile no-smoking zone so you gotta get out of my way" ideology is stupid. I agree with no smoking at work, but if you work in a bar, you're gonna have to deal with it, it's called personal responsibility. With the popularity of quitting as of late, I'm surprize it hasn't been cashed in on more by people starting a non-smoking bar. Would have worked well I believe, , but anyways. It's gone way overboard, like those BS "truth" ads. The one that especially caught my eye was they were complaining that "Big Tobbaco" was trying to develope a way of using Tobbaco plants in the production of paper. OK, So they try and use crop in a way that is in no way any form of health issue or such, , and you STILL wantt hem to stop? Proved to me they are not about "Truth" in any way, , but just trying to run some people out of business, and would continue to do so even had they done everything asked of them.

I like how the anti-smoking idiots have decided that smoking takes time off the end of your life, , so if you've ever smoked, , and die from anything but physical trauma, , that as far as they are concerned you died of smoking and their figures represent that. basically, if you smoke a pack of cigarettes, and die at 175 years of age, you died from the cigarettes, because if you DIDN'T smoke them, you would have lived another five minutes. I read one article that claimed some enormous amount of people dying every day from smoking, , it was GREATER than the number of people BORN in the US every day. . .somehow I think they were exaggerating a bit.



Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: RCMerchant on May 17, 2007, 05:37:01 PM
 I was reading a book today,by Charles Fort called LO!,and made a comment regarding astromeners..but I suppose it could apply to anyone who is trying to pass on bull sh!t as facts:
   "A researcher will sketchily take up a subject, and then drop it,saying that it is too complex, but that it can be mathematically demonstrated.The reader,who is good deal of a dodger, himself, relieved at at not having to go into complexities, takes this lazily and faithfully. It is bamboozlement."  If enough goverment ordained organizations or paid to think scientists say it's so, then it's so! Or,as Hitler was known to have said,tell a small lie,no one will believe you. Tell a BIG lie, it will seem so outrageous,that it must be true. 
 


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: Andrew on May 17, 2007, 06:46:00 PM
Changing the rating based on smoking is ridiculous.

Now, I am going to disagree that secondhand smoke will not affect others.  My mother smoked and every year (during the winter) I would get bronchitis.  This despite me being a runner, eating well, and so on.  Every year I dealt with a respiratory infection.  That is, until I joined the Marine Corps shortly after my 18th birthday.  At boot camp, I came down with pneumonia (I reported for boot on 3 December).

Since then, I have never had bronchitis or any other serious respiratory infection.  I get a cold or flu now and then, but otherwise no problem at all.  If I am around smokers, afterwards I appear to have hay fever.  Red eyes, sniffles, the works.  I am uncertain if some of those hay fever-like symptoms are psychosomatic or what.

Mom still smokes.  Unfortunately, that means that we will not drop off Jenna and Andy at her house to stay with her.  I can vividly remember hacking up globs of thick phlegm and don't want them to experience that.  I am good with the fact that they will get sick from time to time.  Keeping the immune system up is fine.  There is no reason for it to happen because they are breathing an irritant.


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: Allhallowsday on May 17, 2007, 07:52:45 PM
Changing the rating based on smoking is ridiculous.

Now, I am going to disagree that secondhand smoke will not affect others.  My mother smoked and every year (during the winter) I would get bronchitis.  This despite me being a runner, eating well, and so on.  Every year I dealt with a respiratory infection.  That is, until I joined the Marine Corps shortly after my 18th birthday.  At boot camp, I came down with pneumonia (I reported for boot on 3 December).

Since then, I have never had bronchitis or any other serious respiratory infection.  I get a cold or flu now and then, but otherwise no problem at all.  If I am around smokers, afterwards I appear to have hay fever.  Red eyes, sniffles, the works.  I am uncertain if some of those hay fever-like symptoms are psychosomatic or what.

Mom still smokes.  Unfortunately, that means that we will not drop off Jenna and Andy at her house to stay with her.  I can vividly remember hacking up globs of thick phlegm and don't want them to experience that.  I am good with the fact that they will get sick from time to time.  Keeping the immune system up is fine.  There is no reason for it to happen because they are breathing an irritant.
Well said.  Much of American culture has become politicized, and I agree with much of what has been said in this thread regarding that, however it seems that there is a kernel of common sense to the idea that breathing smoke on a regular basis, albeit even secondhand smoke, can't be good for anyone.  Though public smoking is virtually nonexistent in my state, it wasn't so long ago I would see mothers blowing smoke into the faces of their toddlers in the supermarket wagon.  Though I miss my cigs when bellied up to the bar, I believe breathing is a right and smoking a privilege. 


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: ulthar on May 17, 2007, 09:31:03 PM
I think there is a BIG difference in being constantly exposed to it, especially as a child and in enclosed areas, and some of the ridiculous claims that are made.  I've heard people claim they can smell the smoke from INSIDE their house when a smoker lights up inside THEIR HOUSE over 300 yards away.

Andrew, The WHO study showed no statistical increase in chronic diseases like cancer for secondary smokers over the control; what you  are describing are acute symptoms and that seems pretty reasonable for a close proximity exposure.  Hopefully, you won't show long term, chronic effects.

In either case, the point is that the anti-smoking 'establishment' in this country seems off the deep end with some of what is said and done, and this MPAA 'action' demonstrates that.


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: Allhallowsday on May 17, 2007, 10:41:02 PM
. . . the point is that the anti-smoking 'establishment' in this country seems off the deep end with some of what is said and done, and this MPAA 'action' demonstrates that.
You're right; that was the point of the thread.  Assuming the MPAA takes action such as rating a film as more "adult" because a character may smoke is ridiculous. 

But, I wouldn't be quick to point fingers at an anti-smoking establishment since its precedent as "establishment" are the huge Washington lobbies, like the NRA, or still huge and powerful Altria Group (formerly Philip Morris) with millions spent each year on politicians.  One must weigh motivation.  Oil, guns, tobacco, it's all big money.   There is no money in selling abstinence. 


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: ulthar on May 18, 2007, 07:34:48 AM

  There is no money in selling abstinence. 


Hehe, in theory I guess that's correct.  In this day-and-age of federal grants for this and that program, PLUS all the pharmaceutical companies and therapists selling methodologies to quit smoking, I think there is plenty of money in abstinence.  Truth.com was not running (false) TV commercials for free.

Plus, the real motivation seems to be more power than money.

What, me cynical?   :wink:


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: Jack on May 18, 2007, 07:54:30 AM
I "agree"  :smile: about there not being any money in selling abstinence.  My folks live in Florida in the Winter, and they passed some smoking ban in all public restaurants down there.  Now my folks are complaining that there aren't any restaurants anymore.  They passed a rule where I used to work that nobody could smoke in the factory, so everybody just went in the bathrooms for a smoke, and the supervisors were left to wonder where the hell all their employees went.  Of course it was a bit of a catch-22 since all the supervisors were doing the same thing as well.  I'm sure productivity must have skyrocketed.  The funniest part was watching all the non-smokers follow the smokers outside for their breaks because of course those people are their friends and they wanted to hang out with them and really couldn't care less if they smoked or not. 


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: ghouck on May 18, 2007, 09:56:48 AM
Quote
The funniest part was watching all the non-smokers follow the smokers outside for their breaks because of course those people are their friends and they wanted to hang out with them and really couldn't care less if they smoked or not. 

Yea, but it's one dolt, , usually a recently-quit ex-smoker that goes out of their way to be offended, or expects others to abstain to help them quit.


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: DodgingGrunge on May 18, 2007, 10:17:56 AM
Yea, but it's one dolt, , usually a recently-quit ex-smoker that goes out of their way to be offended, or expects others to abstain to help them quit.

I think nonsmokers have a valid right to be offended by me and mine.  We are on the pleasure-receiving end of it, and we are the ones looking cool, whereas the nonsmoker has to make the best of standing there.  That being said, there is no constitutional right to not being offended.  :teddyr:  Want to hear a sad story?  I am allergic to virtually everything (but tobacco smoke) including perfume.  My girlfriend is kind enough to oblige, but often times I cannot remain in closed quarters with her friends because it quickly becomes difficult to breath.  I also cannot enter Victoria's Secret lingerie stores.  :bluesad:  But, I would certainly be the last person to campaign for a ban on fragrances.  Personal accountability: because of my intolerance, I avoid them when I can.


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: Allhallowsday on May 18, 2007, 11:14:42 AM
  There is no money in selling abstinence. 
Hehe, in theory I guess that's correct.  In this day-and-age of federal grants for this and that program, PLUS all the pharmaceutical companies and therapists selling methodologies to quit smoking, I think there is plenty of money in abstinence.  Truth.com was not running (false) TV commercials for free.
Plus, the real motivation seems to be more power than money.
What, me cynical?   :wink:
I don't think "the patch" or Nicorette gum or paid for quitting methodologies are so much abstinence as substitution.   Sadly, I also think power and money are interchangeable. 


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: The Burgomaster on May 19, 2007, 07:20:29 AM
Maybe movies should also receive an "R" rating if they show people eating foods cooked in trans-fat.


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: sideorderofninjas on May 20, 2007, 10:21:49 PM
Don't encourage the ratings boards.  I'm sure they'll move onto the evils of meat and sugar soon enough...



Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: CheezeFlixz on May 25, 2007, 10:39:54 AM
What a bunch of BS ... and speaking of BS has anyone seen "Penn and Teller's Show BULLSH!T"? They have a bit on second hand smoke that all the claims about it being harmful are all BS and that the claims are distorted and blown out of whack ... and they are both non-smokers.

http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/prevepisodes.do?episodeid=s1/shs (http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/prevepisodes.do?episodeid=s1/shs)


JUST and FYI!


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: rebel_1812 on May 25, 2007, 11:49:54 AM
even if second hand smoke is harmful, it isn't more harmful then car pollution and industry pollution.  Where is the movement to stop those?  I think smoking is the target because a group of individuals that can be stigmatized do it, instead of powerful companies or the masses.


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: ghouck on May 25, 2007, 02:28:14 PM
Quote
I think nonsmokers have a valid right to be offended by me and mine.  We are on the pleasure-receiving end of it, and we are the ones looking cool, whereas the nonsmoker has to make the best of standing there.  That being said, there is no constitutional right to not being offended.    Want to hear a sad story?  I am allergic to virtually everything (but tobacco smoke) including perfume.  My girlfriend is kind enough to oblige, but often times I cannot remain in closed quarters with her friends because it quickly becomes difficult to breath.  I also cannot enter Victoria's Secret lingerie stores.    But, I would certainly be the last person to campaign for a ban on fragrances.  Personal accountability: because of my intolerance, I avoid them when I can.

It's true. I spoke mainly of those "intentionally being offended". Whan I smoked, I'd had people litterally follow me around saying "I'd appreciate it if you didn't smoke around me". It sucks. . 

Another thing, along the lines of your allergies, there is (was) a Salsa and Hot Sauce shop in one of the malls. Had all kinds of cool Salsas, peppers, hot sauce, chilli kits, eveything you could need along those lines. Well, in next door moved a "Candle and Soap" shop, that just completely reeked. It was as horrible as you can imaging. I'm talking like going into the mall with the intent of buying all kinds of awesome food, and losing my appitite to the point of being nautious, and not buying anything because nothing looked good. I could smell that crap litterally 10 stores in either direction. The Salsa shop people said they not only have less customers come it, but rearely sold anything, when it used to be that nearly everyone that entered bought something. Even the free samples went untouched, and nearly everyone complained about the soap / perfume smell. I complained to the management of the soap store, but they could care less. The mall made them install an exhaust fan to keep the smell out of the rest of the mall, and after much restance, they finally complied, but not till after the salsa shop went under.


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: Inyarear on May 25, 2007, 05:05:03 PM
Well, I'm no smoker myself, and there's obviously nothing healthy about inhaling the rough equivalent of bus fumes all day whether they're your fumes or not. On the other hand, if you live in the city or anywhere there's a fair number of drivers and/or factories around, you'll be inhaling your share of atmospheric contaminants anyway. This whole focus on demonizing smokers and smoking is hurting people's health more than helping it; when government gets overbearing and meddlesome, people have all the more justification for doing bad things just to feel all cool and rebellious. Meddling with movie ratings over smoking, of all things, is retarded.

When you get down to it, in fact, the ratings system we have is a bit foolish anyway; ratings ought to be a kind of parental aid, not a propaganda instrument. If the MPAA is so scay-ered about kids smoking, the thing to do is just to build their anti-smoking propaganda into the movies rather than start screwing around with ratings. I mean, they've done some serious damage to the traditional family all these years with their portrayals of marriage as a trap, parents as idiots, promiscuous kids as cool, and the abstinent guys as losers and/or frigid do-gooders. Now they're going to tell me they can't do the same thing to smoking? Yet they insist on this idiotic nanny-state solution instead.

There's some question of whether abstinence (from anything) sells; well, yes and no. In politics, what sells is agitation for abstinence, not abstinence itself. In more general terms, activism sells far better than getting actual results. A government program can't really make anyone abstinent from sex, alcohol, tobacco, or any other potentially self-destructive activity. If it can build a huge self-sustaining bureaucracy and keep getting its architects elected to office, however, then by political standards it's a huge success! Likewise, Hollywood isn't really the least bit interested in keeping any of us from smoking. If it can appear to be all caring about our health and if this wins it all kinds of acclaim from the media and from the media's self-appointed moralists, however, then we have to admit its anti-smoking program has been very successful--for Hollywood, not for abstinence.

We've got to stop relying on the authority of official experts so much and start doing our own rating. Letting these jerks raise our kids for us has been a disaster.


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: flackbait on May 29, 2007, 12:49:04 AM
In my opinion The Whole "insert all your favorite swearwords here" system needs an overhaul. The FCC, THE MPAA etc. It seems everything is going down the tubes these days.


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: DodgingGrunge on May 29, 2007, 04:06:48 PM
In my opinion The Whole "insert all your favorite swearwords here" system needs an overhaul. The FCC, THE MPAA etc. It seems everything is going down the tubes these days.

Censorious organizations are inherently flawed in that their foundations will always be subjective.  Whether they take a literal approach, like the FCC, and define a list of what you cannot say, or whether they try to base conclusions on the overall mood of a work like the MPAA, the issue of acceptability is still going to be based on someone's personal opinion.  The MPAA has claimed from the beginning to be merely an advisory system, but that simply does not work for the commercial business of American films.  By advising that a large chunk of the demographic should not see the movie, studios are obviously going to cut and snip until they receive a less restrictive rating.

Quite frankly, I don't think this is something the industry or the government should be doing.  If parents object to things their children come into contact with, then the parents should step in and filter that out.  Objectionable content in movies is no different than objectionable drug dealers in bad neighborhoods.  If you do not want to expose yourself or your children to such shady concepts, don't.  But if I want to sit among the sordid and decrease property values for a city block, that is my right.  It is unreasonable and lazy to expect the industry to regulate itself for the sake of your particular values.  That is silly.  It would be like forcing the Catholic Church to recognize Ra, the sun god, so as not to offend ancient Egyptians or Mcdonalds to carry tofu burgers so as not to offend vegetarians.  If you're pagan, don't go to a Catholic Church.  If you're vegetarian, don't go to McDonalds.  If you don't like sh!t-eating transvestites, don't watch John Waters movies.  If we are such a free-market system, let supply and demand determine content!


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: RCMerchant on May 29, 2007, 06:09:56 PM
  :hot: Preach it ,brother! :thumbup:


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: Neville on May 30, 2007, 03:40:16 AM
I'd sign fot that, too, but it wouldn't work. Without a general rating system avery state would end up enforcing their own system, if only to please more conservative voters. I'm told that even with the MPAA existing, there are shops that offer edited versions of DVDs. Imagine that x1000.


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: BoyScoutKevin on May 30, 2007, 01:23:42 PM
The new rating may not have that much affect anyway. Not only is smoking--apparently--down in films, but 75% of the films that do contain smoking are already rated "R' for one reason or the other.


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: DodgingGrunge on May 30, 2007, 02:55:04 PM
but 75% of the films that do contain smoking are already rated "R' for one reason or the other.

I hope you're not suggesting that adult activities are primarily confined to films marketed to adults!  :wink:


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: Neville on May 30, 2007, 03:11:38 PM
And what will happen to Bogart? Nobody is thinking of Bogart!


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: RCMerchant on May 30, 2007, 06:54:05 PM
I agree with Neville...I'm more worried about CENSORSHIP of movies past,than omittance of smoking of movies present> Whatta bout Bogie,indeed! :question:


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: DodgingGrunge on May 30, 2007, 09:53:50 PM
I'm more worried about CENSORSHIP of movies past...


We all know how much fun that can be; thank you E.T.  But companies have also been sneakily altering their covers for a few years now.  Every time I pull my copy of Hustler off the shelf I cannot help but think Paul Newman is making fart noises with his puffed out lips.

(http://www.dodginggrunge.com/adminStorage/hustler.jpg)


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: Joe on May 31, 2007, 06:24:37 AM
it doesnt really matter to me, thats what dvds are for. if they start effecting the films on dvd then ill rant and rave, though i dont belive that would ever happen.


Title: Re: Rated R for Language, Nudity and Brief Smoking?
Post by: CheezeFlixz on May 31, 2007, 09:23:37 AM
I'm more worried about CENSORSHIP of movies past...


We all know how much fun that can be; thank you E.T.  But companies have also been sneakily altering their covers for a few years now.  Every time I pull my copy of Hustler off the shelf I cannot help but think Paul Newman is making fart noises with his puffed out lips.

([url]http://www.dodginggrunge.com/adminStorage/hustler.jpg[/url])


Seems they forget to photoshop out the shadow from the cig in the photo ... it's a mystery shadow.