Okay, I don’t remember the organization’s name, but apparently there’s another bunch of fucking health nut fuck jobs out there that now feel our children are in so much danger of contracting cancer due to their feeble minds being so manipulative that any movie with a smoking scene in it should be deemed Rated R.
What the FUCK? How do people get so god damned bone headed? Obviously, watching smoking on the screen didn’t get these mother fuckers to pick up the pipe, so where the hell do they get off thinking that all forms of television/movie/media are such a strong influence on children that the simplest mention of something “bad for them” should deem immediate censorship?
Again, I don’t have the quote verbatim, but the spokesman interviewed that I saw claimed that cigarrettes are in movies because “Big tabacco companies pay filmakers to put them in to help sponsor their brands.”
Ummmmm…no, sorry. HAve these people ever SEEN a student produced, no budget film? Have they ever watched public access movies/t.v. shows? These people get no funding from tabacco companies, and guess what? Their characters smoke. You know why? Because either the writer of the film decided the character would be a smoker, or the fucking actor is a smoker and it just got into the film. People smoke in movies because people smoke in real life, and they enjoy it, not because some big evil company is paying them to help corrupt the youth of America.
I don’t smoke and I’m 23, so their little pull doesn’t effect me at all personally, but for some reason, when faced with this sort of stupid ass hat pottyhead mentality, all I wanna do is grab these little pencil neck pricks by the collar, shake the fuck out of them and scream “HEY!! Get outside, experience life, realize even kids have a brain, and FUCK OFF!!!”
Now it’s on. It’s god damn ON. If I can’t go to the movies and see super hot guys smoking with a leather jacket on…I am joining the fucking terrorists.
That and these damnable commercials are really irritating the hell out of me. I’m starting to feel like the only commercials on TV any more are for cars, “feminine products” and anti-smoking crapola.
The part I don’t understand is that it’s usually the stereoptypical bad guy/gal with the smoking part these days. The Dudley Dorights (had to look that spelling up, I always thought it was Dooright?) in children’s films don’t often smoke from what I can recall. Villain = ugly smoker, seems to be the norm. I can’t remember the last time I’ve seen smoking portrayed as something glamorous.
But wise men also smoke. Smoke = intelligence. Look at Gandolf. And pretty much any “old, wise man” from movies, especially if he’s Asian. Mystics and wise men smoke, and evil people smoke, hm…
Reminds me of Terry Pratchett books how only the truly intelligent people are the villains.
I don’t need some Anti-Smoking League to tell me not to smoke.
I had my own Anti-Smoking League growing up - Called My Parents. Both Smoked Cigarettes, and I have taken it upon myself to decide for my health, NOT TO SMOKE.
I do not need to see it on the Movies, or watch an actor like Russell Crowe, who smokes to just start up this Nasty, Expensive Habit.
Was this the same people who wanted to edit all Smoking related inferences from I Love Lucy?
But they’re doing smokers a favor! By continuing to rally against smoking and continuing to try to stir up outrage against smoking, they make you even more cool for continuing to smoke! How can you go one defying The Man if there ain’t no Man to defy?
Kind of hard to respond to a vague recollection of what someone else instead of a cite…but if they are claiming that smoking product placement can be a contributing factor toward teen smoking…are you disagreeing with that assertion?
Whether there should be stronger (or any) efforts to regulate smoking related product placement is a legitimate debate. Claiming that product placement doesn’t work will surely be news to the ad agencies spending millions of dollars doing that activity.
If you don’t think tobacco companies are using product placement as a way around the advertising ban, well (how shall I put this nicely?) uh, your lack of cynicism is, uh, refreshing. (There. That was nice, no?)
Well, given that they can’t even advertise on TV/Radio/hell, even NASCAR autos, can you blame them for a little product placement? The dumbass anti-smoking groups should’ve expected it in the first place.
I don’t think anyone’s surprised by it, JohnT (well, except for the refreshingly non-cynical among us). And neither should you be surprised that anti-smoking groups oppose this underhanded form of advertising.
I heard this mentioned on a radio newscast yesterday. As I recall, one of the group’s proposals was that any movie that showed tobacco use would get an R rating.
There’s several ironies with all of this. One is that the tobacco companies were the driving force behind the banning of TV/radio ads. The reason for this is that broadcasters were required to show several anti-smoking PSA’s for every cigarette commercial they aired. These had the effect of encouraging people to quit, which as far as the cigarette companies were concerned, was a bad thing. Another is that according to the surgeon general’s report, pipe smokers live longer than non-smokers. A third is that the most effective anti-smoking ad in history was the one of Yul Brenner saying, “Whatever you do, just don’t smoke.” A fourth is that it’s actually cheaper to provide healthcare for a smoker. See, we tend to die at a rather young age, and thus don’t have as many opportunities to wrack up long-term healthcare bills from places like nursing homes, etc., etc. Fifth is that the various “anti-” campaigns (anti-drug and anti-prostitution campaigns to name but two) haven’t worked, so what makes them think that this particular tactic will work (I can imagine that it would make smoking more appealing, turning it into forbidden fruit)? Seventh, I’ve had more than one old timer tell me that they’ve heard cigarettes called “coffin nails” since they were a wee one, so it’s not like people haven’t known about it for some time. It’s just that the US surgeon general’s report made it official.
I don’t see what your link has to do with anything, or how it “proves I’m wrong.” The majority of my friends in college were film students…I spent three years on a sketch comedy show for my college…never once did my group, or any of my friends get paid by big cigarrette companies to put any brand of cigs in our shit. If we had characters that smoked, it was because it’s part of everyday life and it fit. In any movie script my friends write now, smoking is a habit for many characters and it has nothing to do with sponsorship or endoursment from any industry.
Big Tabacco doesn’t control the media.
And I don’t recall ever claiming product placement doesn’t work. I was an advertising major, I know all about that shit. Read the post before you start claiming what’s wrong with what it’s saying.
