Cigaretten Smoking = Rated R?

Mlenk · Post by **Mlenk** » 2004-03-10 09:45pm

Linky

I think that's ridiculous but maybe it's just me. What do you think?

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2004-03-10 09:54pm

I hope these animal fucking retards get a bad case of leaky butt~

Makes me wonder if some idiot teens are blaming their smoking habits on hollywood

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-03-10 09:58pm

Fucking idiots.

Could ROTJ get a rating becasue of Jabba smoking?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-03-10 10:00pm

Smoking's bad, mmmkay?

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2004-03-10 10:05pm

So now, when someone lights up a cigarette in a movie, they get an R rating, while people can still kill others in PG-13 movies? Are they going to restrict reruns of shows from the 50's where everyone smokes to HBO?

The policy is a bunch of crap, it's not like Hollywood depicts characters smoking to glorify the habit. In real life, people smoke, and since most movies aren't about a world where everyone is happy and it rains gumdrops, some characters in movies are going to smoke.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-03-10 10:14pm

I don't see why this policy is any more ridiculous than giving movies R-rating solely for the use of profane language. In fact, it's quite a bit less ridiculous; cigarette smoking kills an estimated 400,000 people every year in America, while profane language has never been shown to cause any objective harm whatsoever.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2004-03-10 10:27pm

Darth Wong wrote:I don't see why this policy is any more ridiculous than giving movies R-rating solely for the use of profane language. In fact, it's quite a bit less ridiculous; cigarette smoking kills an estimated 400,000 people every year in America, while profane language has never been shown to cause any objective harm whatsoever.

Haven't you silly Canadians learned anything? Remember what the MPAA says; Horrific, Deplorable violence and smoking is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty words! That's what this war is all about!

lance · Post by **lance** » 2004-03-11 09:26am

I guess they won't be able to show Andy Griffith to kids no more.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-03-11 10:23am

Wicked Pilot wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:I don't see why this policy is any more ridiculous than giving movies R-rating solely for the use of profane language. In fact, it's quite a bit less ridiculous; cigarette smoking kills an estimated 400,000 people every year in America, while profane language has never been shown to cause any objective harm whatsoever.
Haven't you silly Canadians learned anything? Remember what the MPAA says; Horrific, Deplorable violence and smoking is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty words! That's what this war is all about!

Reminds me of South Park. American films can have as much violence in as you want, but for the love of Hollywood, don't say the "F" word too much.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-03-11 10:32am

Wicked Pilot wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:I don't see why this policy is any more ridiculous than giving movies R-rating solely for the use of profane language. In fact, it's quite a bit less ridiculous; cigarette smoking kills an estimated 400,000 people every year in America, while profane language has never been shown to cause any objective harm whatsoever.
Haven't you silly Canadians learned anything? Remember what the MPAA says; Horrific, Deplorable violence and smoking is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty words! That's what this war is all about!

That and nudity. If there's a penis in your movie, you're screwed.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-03-11 11:05am

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:
Wicked Pilot wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:I don't see why this policy is any more ridiculous than giving movies R-rating solely for the use of profane language. In fact, it's quite a bit less ridiculous; cigarette smoking kills an estimated 400,000 people every year in America, while profane language has never been shown to cause any objective harm whatsoever.
Haven't you silly Canadians learned anything? Remember what the MPAA says; Horrific, Deplorable violence and smoking is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty words! That's what this war is all about!
That and nudity. If there's a penis in your movie, you're screwed.

Yeah, I remember when 28 Days Later came out in the US, IMDB.com's boards were chock full of guys going on about the showing of a naked Jim in the first part of the film. It was funny as hell to see them act as if the director had just showed a guy raping a baby and shooting old age pensioners.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-03-11 11:14am

IIRC, the only reason the MPAA allowed showing the penis of a dead guy in the theatrical edition of Basic Instinct was because it was "dead."

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-03-11 11:31am

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:IIRC, the only reason the MPAA allowed showing the penis of a dead guy in the theatrical edition of Basic Instinct was because it was "dead."

Great logic. If it's dead it can't ejaculate, but it may stay hard thanks to rigor mortis.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-03-11 11:32am

So, it's okay to shoot and stab people in a PG-13 movie. But not okay to light up?

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-03-11 11:56am

this is idiotic. using their logic they may as well make any movie that uses any type of drug rated R whatsoever. why not make movies or shows with drinking in them rated R? i can think of any number of family sitcoms from the 80s that shows people smoking cigarettes that are otherwise not R material. and they're still showed on reruns to this day.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-03-11 12:09pm

Darth_Zod wrote:this is idiotic. using their logic they may as well make any movie that uses any type of drug rated R whatsoever. why not make movies or shows with drinking in them rated R? i can think of any number of family sitcoms from the 80s that shows people smoking cigarettes that are otherwise not R material. and they're still showed on reruns to this day.

That's because nobody says "fuck" in them. As I said before, the prohibition on profane language is much more absurd than a prohibition on smoking in family programming. Smoking causes enormous social and medical damage in society, while the only damage from profane language is ... well, no one can really say.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-03-11 12:37pm

true enough. but the only reason i could see using smoking in shows being bad is if they were somehow promoting it as good. though actively showing how it damages your health in the shows and showing it isn't an easy ride if you want to smoke would actually be a good thing, and not really deserving to warrant a show getting an R rating. i seem to recall some family shows actually did this from time to time.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-03-11 12:43pm

Darth_Zod wrote:true enough. but the only reason i could see using smoking in shows being bad is if they were somehow promoting it as good. though actively showing how it damages your health in the shows and showing it isn't an easy ride if you want to smoke would actually be a good thing, and not really deserving to warrant a show getting an R rating. i seem to recall some family shows actually did this from time to time.

Some family shows do this, but the vast majority of smoking in movies or TV is portrayed as either benign or "cool". And the current MPAA standards only promote the ridiculous standard that sex and profane language are more harmful to society than violence or cigarettes.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-03-11 01:09pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Darth_Zod wrote:true enough. but the only reason i could see using smoking in shows being bad is if they were somehow promoting it as good. though actively showing how it damages your health in the shows and showing it isn't an easy ride if you want to smoke would actually be a good thing, and not really deserving to warrant a show getting an R rating. i seem to recall some family shows actually did this from time to time.
Some family shows do this, but the vast majority of smoking in movies or TV is portrayed as either benign or "cool". And the current MPAA standards only promote the ridiculous standard that sex and profane language are more harmful to society than violence or cigarettes.

You're right in that it's somewhat consistent with their current standards. The problem is that their current standards are absurd, anyway.

There's a difference between a character smoking just to look cool and smoking because that's just a fact of the time. You can't make a movie set in the time period that Chicago was set in without cigarettes because everyone and his brother smoked. It's just a part of the atmosphere. However, it's perfectly possible to make a movie set in the year 2004 where no one smokes cigarettes without sacrificing atmosphere. A good example is the American Pie series. Lots of teenagers and college students, not a single one was a smoker, if memory serves.

But if you talk to any film students or professors, they'll tell you that in many cases, cigarettes aren't used to make characters look cool or appealing. They're used to convey a character's state of mind, especially if he's extremely nervous or wound up. They're props. An automatic R-rating for cigarettes simply being present in a film is just absurd.