So, cite = 0.
Alternatively, smoking is shown for artistic reasons. Occam and all.
Last years cancelled Constantine had the main character smoking. It had to or the fanboys would have rioted.
That’s absurd. That’s like saying that every time a movie character is seen shaving on camera, that Gillette, Barbasol or Edge bought and paid for that scene.
In general, the product placements are if not blatantly obvious, they’e at least careful to show the product and it’s specific trade dress. Otherwise, what would be the point? To generally promote the category?
I think companies tend to prefer advertisements that pay off better than vague “let’s pay for someone to smoke cigarettes of indefinite brand”.
And… I think there are absolutely valid reasons that a movie might show smoking outside of any sort of payola. For example, Dwight Eisenhower was a serious chain smoker as SACEUR during WWII- showing him NOT smoking would be inaccurate and unrealistic. Hell, you could make a film with Joe DiMaggio in it, and show him smoking as a way to point out why he died (lung cancer).
They didnt give a rats ass about the 10000 fanboys who read that comic- half of which wouldnt watch it anyway.
They just wanted to get kids hooked on nicotine. Well, so does the comic of course.
Not really. They fought to have it in since his smoking was essential to the character and to one of the major planned plot lines. Insisting that every instance of smoking in media is part of a conspiracy is an extraordinary claim. Which demands…
Sure, but why? Have you seen “Thanks for Smoking” where the protagonist is a 4 pack a day man, but is never seen on screen smoking?
And what benefit is it to show smoking? Only about 10% of Americans smoke, and there’s are certainly more smoking haters than smoking fans. I have seen a lot of critical reviews where they complain about the smoking- and also Influence groups- but I have never seen anyone complain that they wanted to see smoking but didnt.
It hurts your Rating and thus a smaller audience.
Which maybe 10000 people knew, and maybe half that cared- and of that half that watched the show. It was a tiny niche comic.
Like I said above- smoking loses you ratings and audience. Now yes, we’d have 2500 fanboys going “Hey that’s wrong!” but no one gives a rats ass about 2500 fanboys.
Evidence is simple: they did it before, and lied about it. When caught, they made a non-binding promise to not do it again. Which for that industry simply means “not *getting caught *doing it”. The Tobacco industry is not to be trusted, no one trusts them.
Smoking in films and TV has *increased *since the agreement, despite smoking IRL significantly decreasing. Showing people smoking in film and TV brought in major sales and new smokers, so why would they give up that revenue stream and stream of new addicts?
Big Tobacco lies. They have a huge financial incentive to do this. Showrunners have no reason to show smoking other than financial incentives. But smoking in film & TV has greatly increased. Ipso facto.
It’s more like 18% who smoke these days, and my point was that if you’re doing a historical movie, it’s likely that people smoked, and in particular certain historical figures smoked profusely. If you google “Smoking Saving Mr. Banks”, there are about 10 newspaper and magazine articles discussing the omission of Walt Disney’s chain-smoking habit in the movie. Clearly it was of enough historical note to engender that level of interest among journalists
I’ll grant you that in modern movies, there’s not a lot of point, in that statistically, any random person has a 80% chance of being a non-smoker, and that the social opprobrium surrounding the act is such that it’s something relegated to villains and the like.
But it does seem… wrong or distorting, or revisionist to do things like they did for Walt Disney in “Saving Mr. Banks”.
Wut? For Americans, the number I’ve seen is closer to 20%. Including Europeans bumps it higher.
I do not use tobacco, but neither am I a smoking hater. I mean, what’s that? Why would someone hate watching a movie where the characters smoke? 
Well, 18% and dropping as of 2012. CA went from 12% to now 10%. So, I was thinking CA, sure, but USA it’s likely 15% now or less.
Nope, that was correct. Walt was a heavy smoker, true, but Lillian hated smoking and Walt knew it was a bad image for the kids. So he tried very hard to never be seen smoking in public. True in his office he smoked, but he’d do exactly as Hanks did- stub it out if he had visitors that werent’ in his close group. Walt often smoked behind the firehouse in DL, but not in public.
Although it was not part of a TV show or a movie, I recall a local highly respected anchorman doing a election-night update in 1980. As the camera came back from the break, he must have just taken a deep drag, but tried to exhale without being noticed while on camera. He kind of ducked down under the desk for a minute while a plume of smoke drifted up over the set. He lasted maybe another month before he was no longer on TV.