| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| damalc |
Posted - 05/11/2007 : 23:46:48
^MPAA adds smoking as film-rating factor
^
� LOS ANGELES (AP) _ Up until now, only smoking by teens or kids mattered for movie ratings. But the Motion Picture Association of America has a new guideline.
� If smoking by adults is pervasive in a movie or the film glamorizes smoking, the M-P-A-A will fold that into the ratings, depending on the context.
� That means it wouldn't be an issue if it's a historical setting, as with the chain-smoking Edward R. Murrow in "Good Night and Good Luck."
� Critics say the move to put smoking on par with sex, violence and language when it comes to rating films doesn't go far enough to discourage teens from taking up the habit of lighting up.
**********
i'm not a big fan of the mpaa in the first place, and i think this is a little silly. so if somebody blazes up in "Alien vs. Predator," it goes from pg-13 to r?
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| randall |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 13:17:23
Better that Hollywood does it voluntarily than being forced to by government. That is the beauty of the admittedly flawed rating system: it has pretty much kept the mouth-breathers' fingers off the movies since the Sixties. Now, a non-porno X-type rating, one that absolutely forbids kids from seeing the flick, is another matter. We should have one, but anything smacking of "adults only" precludes newspaper advertising and Wal-Mart shelf space for the DVD. A tough situation that the MPAA hasn't figured out yet. |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 13:12:13
It might seem a bit silly, but it really doesn't compare to the stupidity of deliberately and regularly breathing in carcinogens, does it?
Young people in particular tend to copy the behaviour of their screen idols. Corporations spend big money on having product placements in films, because they believe people just seeing their product in a film will lead to some people going out and buying that product. If it works for those products it almost certainly applies to smoking too.
|
| damalc |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 00:44:14
quote:
Originally posted by Tori
I don't see how anything is being censored or restricted...the rating is being changed. You can still see it.
it's not that viewers are being censored or restricted but the ratings board is indirectly controlling content of films.
the mpaa says that if someone wants to see a film, they will, regardless of the rating.
however, a film that is unrated or nc17 is not going to get the marketing power and distribution that comes with one of the big studios. so it's more profitable to eliminate certain elements of a film, so that it gets more advertising and ends up on more screens.
for me, it doesn't mean much, because i have a local artsy-fartsy theater that regularly gets films like "The Brown Bunny" and "Shortbus," and a local video store that specializes in hard-to-find titles. chances are good that i'll get to see whatever i want.
but for a filmmaker, it's often worth the money to edit out cigarettes or an f-bomb or a flash of Maria Bello's pubic hair to get the more accessible rating.
i just think it's a little silly. would they have us believe that cigarettes don't exist? so would "Grease" now become R-rated? or what about cigar-smoking J. Jonah Jameson in the Spiderman movies? |
| Downtown |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 22:40:46
quote:
Originally posted by Tori
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
Teenage sex is, at least in my corner of the world, a bigger problem than it was 25 years ago.
No it isn't. Teen pregnancy rates in the United States are much lower than they were 25 years ago. Of course, they're still much higher than they are in the rest of the industrialized world, but American teens are NOT having more sex than their counterparts in the rest of the civilized world...they're just not using condoms.
There's a good reason for that, but I'll let fourumites work that out for themselves.
Is this the teen pregnancy rate or the teen mother rate?
Pregnancy rate. |
| Tori |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 22:29:22
I don't see how anything is being censored or restricted...the rating is being changed. You can still see it. |
| Tori |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 22:05:42
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
Teenage sex is, at least in my corner of the world, a bigger problem than it was 25 years ago.
No it isn't. Teen pregnancy rates in the United States are much lower than they were 25 years ago. Of course, they're still much higher than they are in the rest of the industrialized world, but American teens are NOT having more sex than their counterparts in the rest of the civilized world...they're just not using condoms.
There's a good reason for that, but I'll let fourumites work that out for themselves.
Is this the teen pregnancy rate or the teen mother rate? |
| Tori |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 22:04:04
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
It just annoys me to no end when things keep getting more and more restricted. It rubs my freedom of choice the wrong way. Yippee-ki-yay.
Hmm, but what about my freedom of choice...wanting to see a film but not wanting to be overloaded by drugs, alcohol, nudity and foul language? This really can't be boiled down to freedom of choice if you ask me. If it were about choices, there would be options. So far, Hollywood has attacked companies that edit films for content. There can't be choices really without options. |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 18:10:00
Yes, but vaseline is more extreme and will give a less regular effect. A stocking has the advantage of giving a uniform softness. 
|
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 17:54:23
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
(Just make sure there's no one in it at the time.)
I think they use that in porn movies.
Have you never heard of vaseline?
or is that porn again?  
|
| Beanmimo |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 17:16:33
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
(Just make sure there's no one in it at the time.)
I think they use that in porn movies. |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 16:41:45
No, soft focus is very cheap.
Stretch a stocking over the lens.
(Just make sure there's no one in it at the time.)
|
| Shiv |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 12:43:18
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
It was cheaper than a soft focus.
 |
| Beanmimo |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 09:21:05
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
quote:
Originally posted by rabid kazook
http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/8269/d3nm9.jpg
Heheeeeeee!! Love the Dietrich one!
Ditto
I wonder if we'd think all those old film stars were so glamorous if they weren't photographed in a smoke fog!
It was cheaper than a soft focus. |
| Shiv |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 23:20:30
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
quote:
Originally posted by rabid kazook
http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/8269/d3nm9.jpg
Heheeeeeee!! Love the Dietrich one!
Ditto
I wonder if we'd think all those old film stars were so glamorous if they weren't photographed in a smoke fog! |
| Shiv |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 23:06:13
quote:
Originally posted by damalc
quote:
Originally posted by ragingfluff
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
This is the sort of thinking that could easily drive me to drink, drugs and a spree of meaningless one night stands. I'd be smoking now if only I hadn't given up last december.
I've given up about 6 times since last December
Today is Day 131 without a cigarette for me!
quitters 
I'm trying |
