So I haven’t seen it yet, but is Lucifer actually Lucifer, or is he just a guy who thinks he is Lucifer.
I hope he and black jesus never meet up. Both are apparently in LA.
Look. It’s 2016. A character who drinks and womanizes is hardly shocking. Perhaps they felt they needed to show the character violating the last taboo.
He’s Lucifer. Got tired of being relegated to Hell for eternity (ruler or not) and quit his job. Runs a nightclub and gets up to all kinds of shenanigans. He’s not evil per se. He has a personal code he adheres to. He also is intrigued by humanity in general, not having lived outside of Hell in billions of years.
He does run into some interesting folks in LA, including a street preacher. That was fun. 
I think it’s a very interesting show.
The why not Drugs?
Sure. Why not?
Drugs he also does. Pot at one crime scene, for example.
I don’t get the whole problem with smoking, honestly. It bugged me on Constantine, too, that they had to be so careful about never showing him taking a puff. The character smokes. So what? Why does everything have to be sanitized for children, especially on a show that’s decidedly not kiddie fare?
(No, I don’t smoke. Personally, I think it’s a disgusting habit. But I don’t have a problem with fictional characters smoking if it fits with their persona. And it’s not like Lucifer’s going to get lung cancer.)
OK fine, be sure to let every thread about a Fox TV show know.
Poof ← this puff of smoke is brought to you courtesy of Big Tobacco. Thanks, Phillip Morris. I’m proud to mention smoking for money and have no other agendas.
Unless I missed it, you haven’t shown that they’re doing it for Lucifer; you just cited something from several years ago. And the obvious google searches don’t turn up anything.
ETA: except your claim.
And, evidently, manizes.
And yet when he encountered that pick-up artist guru a few shows ago, he thought it was despicable that he was a womanizer.
Because Big Tobacco got caught giving Payola to the Movie and TV industry to portray smoking in a cool and glamorous light, and so it was made illegal to do that.
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/11/suppl_1/i81.fullResults: *Both the entertainment and tobacco industries recognised the high value of promotion of tobacco through entertainment media. The 1980s saw undertakings by four tobacco companies, Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds (RJR), American Tobacco Company, and Brown and Williamson to place their products in movies. RJR and Philip Morris also worked to place products on television at the beginning of the decade. Each company hired aggressive product placement firms to represent its interests in Hollywood. These firms placed products and tobacco signage in positive situations that would encourage viewers to use tobacco and kept brands from being used in negative situations. At least one of the companies, RJR, undertook an extensive campaign to hook Hollywood on tobacco by providing free cigarettes to actors on a monthly basis. Efforts were also made to place favourable articles relating to product use by actors in national print media and to encourage professional photographers to take pictures of actors smoking specific brands. …
Conclusions: The tobacco industry understood the value of placing and encouraging tobacco use in films, and how to do it. While the industry claims to have ended this practice, smoking in motion pictures increased throughout the 1990s and remains a public health problem.
The tobacco industry recruits new smokers by associating its products with fun, excitement, sex, wealth, and power and as a means of expressing rebellion and independence. One of the ways it has found to promote these associations has been to encourage smoking in entertainment productions.1 Exposure to smoking in entertainment media is associated with increased smoking and favourable attitudes towards tobacco use among adolescents.2–8…While the tobacco industry has routinely denied active involvement in entertainment programming, previously secret tobacco industry documents made available in the USA show that the industry has had a long and deep relationship with Hollywood. Placing tobacco products in movies and on television (fig 1), encouraging celebrity use and endorsement, advertising in entertainment oriented magazines, designing advertising campaigns to reflect Hollywood’s glamour, and sponsoring entertainment oriented events have all been part of the industry’s relationship with the entertainment industry.*
It fits with their persona, because they wrote it to do so.
And the new Mortal Lucifer can apparently get cancer, etc.
and a final quote from that cite:Whether the presence of tobacco is due to tobacco industry activities or not, however, the effect on promoting tobacco is the same. Many of the messages that tobacco, as a prop, is used to convey—rebellion, independence, sexiness, wealth, power and celebration—are images the tobacco industry has created to sell its products.73 The TUTD found that 48% of the 1999-2000 movies they reviewed carried such messages.79 Tobacco use is rarely presented as a cause of death and suffering, or an activity more and more concentrated in lower socioeconomic strata.73, 76 To the degree that directors, performers, and writers accept and repeat images created by the tobacco industry, they continue to provide powerful, “subliminal” messages to young people that tobacco use is an acceptable, even highly desirable, activity. It is also important to note that whether tobacco is used by heroes or villains, it still promotes tobacco use.4, 5
another cite:
http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1106&context=jhclp
and heres from Joe Eszterhas (screenwriter / author of American Rhapsody):
http://www.gasp.org/movies.html
*I’ve written 14 movies…tobacco companies loved “Basic Instinct.” One of them even launched a brand of “Basic” cigarettes not long after the movie became a worldwide hit, perhaps inspired by my cigarette-friendly work…I have made a deal with God. Spare me, I said, and I will try to stop others from committing the same crimes I did…Eighteen months ago I was diagnosed with throat cancer…I haven’t smoked or drank for 18 months now…I don’t think smoking is every person’s right anymore. I think smoking should be as illegal as heroin…Hollywood films…are the advertising agency and sales force for an industry that kills nearly 10,000 people daily.
A cigarette in the hands of a Hollywood star onscreen is a gun aimed at a 12- or 14-year-old…“creative freedom” and “artistic expression” … are lies designed, at best, to obscure laziness…My hands are bloody; so are Hollywood’s. My cancer has caused me to attempt to cleanse mine…*
and for those that say placement stopped:http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1877&context=mlr
Fox got paid for that scene in Lucifer, and Big Tobacco happily paid to entice more kids to start smoking.
Won’t someone think of the children? It’s important that television portrayals of the devil show him as a good role model for them.
This thread is getting hijacked, somewhat, by a big debate about tobacco, so I’d ask that anyone who wanted to debate it or talk about it or explore the cons, pros, merits, or consequences of why or why not this show should have it and the reasons why should be made into its own thread, please.
Or maybe the devil sometimes does bad things.
I’m as anti smoking as anyone but I just can’t get behind this conspiracy theory.
ETA: sorry… Idle Thoughts post apparently came in while I was writing this… feel free to delete it if you want.
I thougt he thought it was the techniques that he thought were despicable.
I’m just going from memory, so I may have it completely wrong. And I’m sure he was contemptuous of the techniques at the seminar as well, although I don’t remember him staying there long enough to see any of them explained.
But I’m talking about the end of the episode, where it turned out that the guru’s current fiancee had slept with him a couple of years before, and he hadn’t even remembered her, driving her into a murderous rage. And IIRC, Lucifer thought she was justified in wanting to kill him for that.
But I guess you could argue there’s a big difference between seducing an innocent girl and then dropping her, and having a one-nighter with a woman who’s looking for the same thing.
My take-away from that episode was the Lucifer was disgusted by the fraudulent approach to womanizing. That guy’s seminar was all about tricking women into sleeping with him and then discarding them to move on to the next conquest.
By contrast, Lucifer is genuinely interested in the women (and men) he seduces. Presumably.
He has a big thing about lying. He never does it (that I could tell), for one thing.
Last night’s episode touched on jealousy. I don’t want to spoil anything, but when Lucifer discovers that oh my yes, he’s capable of it, the look on his face was priceless.
On the greater note his irritation quotient is bugging the crap out of me. I actually had to leave the room a couple of times for fear I was going to slap him through the TV. I’m figuring either the writers/Tom Ellis are getting it “right” with the characterization and WANT you to feel the same or I’ve got issues (well, don’t we all?) with men like him IRL.