Ban movies that glamorise smoking?

junder

BeQuiet wrote: »

Well ...am not talking about changing existing movies .... yes that would be ridiculous. Its a matter of changing attitudes of film makers when making movies so that they are not so quick to take the tobacco $$$$ dollars.
And thats all fine to talk about artistic license, but the tobacco industry have no interest in art ... they are out to make money , and they know what works.

A press release in 2001 by UK organisation ASH : “Smoking may seem less troubling than sex and violence at first sight, but smoking in films may be an incubator nurturing teenage smoking, and therefore a gateway to a long term and powerful addiction ­ which ultimately causes terrible damage. While we don't want smoking in films banned,there is a good case to upgrade the age classification to 15 if the film features smoking by aspirational role models ­such as megastar young actors.”

And what about drugs, alcohol are any other risk taken behaviour maybe films might be more moral but i would say watching paint dry would be more fun then going to the cinema

Ardent

I'm glad someone has brought this up. I have DEFINITELY notice a HUGE increase in the depiction of characters smoking in major movies over the last 5 years. We all talk about product placement in modern movies and this is the biggest exponent of it IMO.

As an ex smoker of 3 years, I can vouch for the fact that these visual images of people smoking do have a powerful effect on the viewer. I sometimes wonder briefly what it was like to smoke at times (then I recall the horrible addiction) - I can only imagine the effect this has on young people who have no experience of cigarrettes.

I'm all for banning smokes from movies. Anyone who thinks Big Tobacco isn't exploiting this advertising stream is very naive.

WindSock

Just No. Don't ban anything from films. (except maybe snuff and child porn)

Nodin

Ardent wrote: »

As an ex smoker of 3 years, I can vouch for the fact that these visual images of people smoking do have a powerful effect on the viewer. I sometimes wonder briefly what it was like to smoke at times (then I recall the horrible addiction) - I can only imagine the effect this has on young people who have no experience of cigarrettes.

Bugger all, because they aren't an ex-smoker having a case of the gumminations. (And I'm an ex-60 Rothmans a day man.)

the_syco

Ardent wrote: »

As an ex smoker of 3 years, I can vouch for the fact that these visual images of people smoking do have a powerful effect on the viewer. I sometimes wonder briefly what it was like to smoke at times (then I recall the horrible addiction) - I can only imagine the effect this has on young people who have no experience of cigarrettes.

I'm all for banning smokes from movies. Anyone who thinks Big Tobacco isn't exploiting this advertising stream is very naive.

So... you see someone smoking in a film, so you start smoking? So... if you see films with people killing each other, do you have an urge to kill?

humanji

Out of curiosity, what films over the last while have glorified smoking? I'm trying to think of films I've seen lately that even have people smoking in them. I'm sure there's some, but I just can't think of them.

Ardent

the_syco wrote: »

So... you see someone smoking in a film, so you start smoking? So... if you see films with people killing each other, do you have an urge to kill?

That's a silly comparison in fairness.

Ardent

Nodin wrote: »

Bugger all, because they aren't an ex-smoker having a case of the gumminations. (And I'm an ex-60 Rothmans a day man.)

I think maybe you underestimate how impressionable young kids are.

Think Starbucks frappuccinos. Would Blackrock kids buy these things every day if it wasn't for Britney Spears and her like? Who knows. At least frapuccinos don't contain a drug to hook you for life.

BeQuiet

StopTheDrugWar! wrote: »

Because i happen to believe in freedom. No human being should ever have the right to "protect" another adult them "from themselves".

What makes you think you deserve sovereignty over my body?

In fact, anyone wise enough to qualify for such a position would have long realised that taking away people's freedom is not an effective way of going about things.

Let people live their own lives, you've enough to do worrying about your own.

Sounds like quotes from (your) fight againt drugs regulation ?

I do disagree fundametally with you here - people do need to be protected from themselves... its one of the philosophical / political issues you and I would possibly never see eye to eye on ....

But - back to the thread here ... fair enough - banning movies that glamorise smoking is a step too far ... but we restrict movies based on poss bad influence on young impressionable people - so say giving a PG or 15+ cert to any movie that is deemed by the film censor (i know u luv that word !!) would be good imho ...

The big plus would be that it would show the film biz that someone knows what they are at, and wants to stop them...

... and maybe build awareness of their dirty little propaganda game ....

BeQuiet

WindSock wrote: »

Just No. Don't ban anything from films. (except maybe snuff and child porn)

Your pic is a good illustration of the point here ... We do need to try to limit the effect of this film industry marketing of tobacco products.

A Ban ? ok a step too far - but certainly limiting it / advisory warnings maybe on screen / or deletion of scenes ?

Something needs to be done - otherwise we will never get tobaacco usage / lung cancer /emphysema to start decreasing .

BeQuiet

PeakOutput wrote: »

right now this is YOUR OPINION which clearly alot of people here disagree with so you need to PROVE what you are saying

eh No - I dont have to prove anything (despite all ur capital letters ) !

And, no - from reading the posts here u will see that most people dont really disagree with this premise that the glamorisation of smoking in movies has been a major factor in getting many many people to start smoking (what people disagree with is banning movies etc)

You said originally something about no one starting smoking because they saw it in a movie.
I said : "Yes there are large numbers of them... they just dont realise the reasons they started smoking .... but subliminal advertising methods like showing glamorous attractive people smoking in movies is one of the main ways this is done. "

This is "my opinion" yes (u are big on emphasis on opinions ) - and cannot be proved. Just like it cannot be proved that tobacco gives u lung cancer, or (more relevant) it cannot be proved that spending millions of dollars on advertising creates demand for product.

Why do u think tobacco biz funnels $$$ to the film industry if not to create demand?

Manic Moran

Why would we have to "have the same rules for films that involve sex, drinking, guns, crime" etc ... thats a big jump in logic... we are talking about trying to limit film industry making an addictive and dangerous habit appear to be attractive to impressionable people

I have found sex and guns to be quite addictive, and drinking does have a reputation for the same.

NTM

Liam Byrne

OK, let's forget the illegal stuff for a while.

BeQuiet - should we ban movies that glamorise drinking ? Stop showing the residents of Corrie or Fair City in their local ?

turgon

BeQuiet wrote: »

people do need to be protected from themselves

And I suppose your the going to be the person who decides what is good or not for everyone?

PeakOutput

Ardent wrote: »

That's a silly comparison in fairness.

why?

At least frapuccinos don't contain a drug to hook you for life.

actually it does http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine and caffeine is addictive before you say its not

so say giving a PG or 15+ cert to any movie that is deemed by the film censor (i know u luv that word !!) would be good imhop

its already done from my reading of the irish film censor guidelines and i have heard him on the radio discussing it before

http://www.ifco.ie/website/ifco/ifcoweb.nsf/web/classcatintro?opendocument&type=graphic

Your pic is a good illustration of the point here

his picture is a good illustration of an adult movie that should not be watched by anyone under 18. it is also 15 years old when what was and was not acceptable was very different

eh No - I dont have to prove anything (despite all ur capital letters ) !

if you want your claims to be taken seriously then you need to reference them why would we take your word for it? if it was such a big problem surely there is research out there?

"Yes there are large numbers of them... they just dont realise the reasons they started smoking .... but subliminal advertising methods like showing glamorous attractive people smoking in movies is one of the main ways this is done. "

This is "my opinion" yes (u are big on emphasis on opinions ) - and cannot be proved.

of course it can be proven / disproven in fact im pretty sure the studies are out there that prove it has an affect. do you think they would spend money on the off chance it would have an affect? i am disagreeing that it is a major contributing factor and im disagreeing that i should be in any way affected by any regulation brought in to reduce this already negligible influence

i would like you to show me some examples of films in the last 5 years that are not rated 16 or 18 + and that glamourise smoking because i cannot think of any

Just like it cannot be proved that tobacco gives u lung cancer, or (more relevant) it cannot be proved that spending millions of dollars on advertising creates demand for product.

both those thigns can and have been proven numerous times, particularly the smoking causes cancer one dont be ridicolous

people do need to be protected from themselves

people....no..kids yes and they are already protected fairly well, if their parents choose to let them watch adult movies there is little anyone can do

edit; and by the way my parents(father in particular) did let me watch films that i was too young for according to the rating (including the one in the picture) and i have had maybe 10 cigarettes in my life and have never been addicted to any substance even though they were glamourised in numerous films i watched

BeQuiet

Liam Byrne wrote: »

OK, let's forget the illegal stuff for a while.

BeQuiet - should we ban movies that glamorise drinking ? Stop showing the residents of Corrie or Fair City in their local ?

Different subject really.... but , as you bring it up, drinking alcohol in moderation is ok with me , and doesnt have too much adverse health effects i believe, so cant see any reason to limit that on tv / film. Now, if it was "glamorising" getting drunk (as in making it seem attractive / cool) , then yes, that should be limited in some way (maybe by showing after the watershed / showing a warning on screen / or just not showing it in teh first place).

But then i think most film / tv shows do not do this for people abusing alcohol - a sharp contrast with the way they show smoking to be cool.

pug_

BeQuiet wrote: »

But - back to the thread here ... fair enough - banning movies that glamorise smoking is a step too far ... but we restrict movies based on poss bad influence on young impressionable people - so say giving a PG or 15+ cert to any movie that is deemed by the film censor (i know u luv that word !!) would be good imho ...

Here's my problem. You're saying that you only take issue with films that are viewed by impressionable kids. Yet I'm struggling to think of any gen, pg, 12 rated films that have smoking in them.

I think films that glamorise smoking are generally either of the 18 variety, or historical, and neither of these are either aimed at nor watched by impressionable children.

If you can point out any films aimed specifically at a younger audience that promote smoking then you might have a point, but I've a feeling you might struggle there a bit. This is probably also why there is so much objection to your proposal on this forum because people automatically assume you're talking about all films, I did my self when I read the original post.

W123-80's

BeQuiet wrote: »

Censorship is fine with me ... in fact we all live with it every day.

And "slippery slope" - that implies to me that you want to talk about something else, rather than the issue at hand. The proposal is banning / restricting movies that glamorise smoking - not anything else.
And restricting what can be shown in movies - I dont really see that as "treading all over people's freedom"- that reaction is just a little bit hysterical !

The FACTs are
-the tobacco industry uses films to promote their addictive habit.
- tobacco usage INCREASES every year (most usage increases are in 3rd world countries)

So - how do you think tobacco usage should be reduced ... the same old solutions .. that have not worked, and will continue to fail ?
.... thats what the tobacco biz wants to happen !

I'm confused.

Are you suggesting smoking is banned in films to protect society from the health risks associated with smoking?

I have to agree with a previous poster who referred to personal responsibility.

Why stop at smoking?

Should we not go the whole hog and ban films that show people eating Fast Food? That stuff is absolute muck and very unhealthy.

Obviously drug taking would also need to be banned from all films.

Might as well close the Rovers Return & The Queen Vic while we are at it.

OP, I can see absolutely no reason why your suggestion is even worth considering.

EDIT; I posted before I read all posts on this thread. I see alot of poeple have already pretty must made my point!

BeQuiet

pug_ wrote: »

Here's my problem. You're saying that you only take issue with films that are viewed by impressionable kids. Yet I'm struggling to think of any gen, pg, 12 rated films that have smoking in them.

I think films that glamorise smoking are generally either of the 18 variety, or historical, and neither of these are either aimed at nor watched by impressionable children.

If you can point out any films aimed specifically at a younger audience that promote smoking then you might have a point, but I've a feeling you might struggle there a bit.

From TIME mag website : http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1566401,00.html

Do movies aimed at kids glamorize smoking? The American Medical Association (AMA) Alliance, the 26,000-member volunteer arm of the AMA, thinks so. And while everybody else is busy compiling Ten Best Lists for 2006, this socially responsible Grinch has been busy figuring out what's worst. For the holiday season, it has released a blacklist of no-nos for parents to consider as they are loading up stockings with DVDs. The following recent films, according to the AMA Alliance, contain an excessive amount of smoking:
* The Ant Bully (PG: Time Warner, animated)
* Material Girls (PG: Sony)
* Talladega Nights (PG-13: Sony)
* Pirates of the Caribbean 2 (PG-13: Disney)
* Stay Alive (PG-13: Disney)
* Superman Returns (PG-13: Time Warner)
* You, Me and Dupree (PG-13: General Electric, Universal

BeQuiet

PeakOutput wrote: »

if you want your claims to be taken seriously then you need to reference them why would we take your word for it? if it was such a big problem surely there is research out there?

According to the Centers for Disease Control, smoking among teenagers is no longer dropping as it did during the late 1990s, and smoking in films is partly responsible. "Movies deliver billions of glamorized pro-smoking messages to adolescents in this country," says James Sargent, M.D., a Dartmouth Medical School professor who researches the impact on children of movies with smoking scenes.

Over the past seven years, Hollywood's youth-rated movies have been more likely to feature tobacco than R-rated films: there have been at least 460 G, PG and PG-13 movies with smoking, compared with only 440 R-rated movies, according to the Alliance. At the same time, tobacco advertising and promotion in the United States has more than tripled since 1997. "On-screen smoking has been implicated as the cause of 390,000 new teen smokers every year," says Nita Maddox, AMA Alliance president. "It is estimated that 120,000 of this group of new teen smokers will eventually die from tobacco use." The Alliance is launching a parent-to-parent grassroots campaign to make future movies rated G, PG and PG-13 smoke-free — an effort that could reverberate in other foreign countries where U.S films dominate and where, Maddox says, "the tobacco industry is hunting its next generation."

BeQuiet

PeakOutput wrote: »

both those thigns can and have been proven numerous times, particularly the smoking causes cancer one dont be ridicolous

What you asked for was me to PROVE (your caps) that glamorisation of smoking in movies causes people to start smoking.
The key word is PROVE

It has not been proven that smoking causes cancer !
Yes to me - and thousands of doctors etc - its obvious that it does, but that does not constitute 'proof'.
So I am not being "ridicolous" (sic)

And neither can it be PROVEN that glamorisation of smoking in movies causes people to start smoking.
However to me it is self evident .
Fair enough though that you might find it hard to see - many posters here agree with you.

See posts above for some evidence on it ....

pug_

BeQuiet wrote: »

From TIME mag website : http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1566401,00.html

Do movies aimed at kids glamorize smoking? The American Medical Association (AMA) Alliance, the 26,000-member volunteer arm of the AMA, thinks so. And while everybody else is busy compiling Ten Best Lists for 2006, this socially responsible Grinch has been busy figuring out what's worst. For the holiday season, it has released a blacklist of no-nos for parents to consider as they are loading up stockings with DVDs. The following recent films, according to the AMA Alliance, contain an excessive amount of smoking:
* The Ant Bully (PG: Time Warner, animated)
* Material Girls (PG: Sony)
* Talladega Nights (PG-13: Sony)
* Pirates of the Caribbean 2 (PG-13: Disney)
* Stay Alive (PG-13: Disney)
* Superman Returns (PG-13: Time Warner)
* You, Me and Dupree (PG-13: General Electric, Universal

In that case I agree with you. Those films are aimed at kids and to my mind shouldn't have characters in them that smoke.

Maybe a change to the rating system for children's films that portray smoking is not a bad idea, possibly a warning that the film contains scenes that may glamorise smoking so parents are fully aware that what their children are watching is appropriate.

BeQuiet

zing zong wrote: »

the thing is tho, that all of these things including smoking are in films that aren't intented for children to begin with, so if kids do manage to see 'em its the parents fault, and no one else

Stanton Glantz, a professor at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine and founder of the Smoke-free Movies Action Network (smokefreemovies.ucsf.edu) : "No tobacco company, he notes, has asked for a smoking ban in movies rated PG or PG-13 movies, which teenagers favor. Meanwhile, a mandatory R rating for movies that feature smoking has been endorsed by the World Health Organization and the American Medical Association among other groups. And earlier this year (2007), 41 US state attorneys general again wrote motion picture studios renewing their call for anti-smoking ads on any DVD or movie that includes smoking. "

BeQuiet

W123-80's wrote: »

OP, I can see absolutely no reason why your suggestion is even worth considering.

From the US makesmokinghistory.org site :
American youth are exposed to an extraordinary array of messages via many forms of media. Screens are flooded with influential messages from DVDs, computer games, TV, the Internet and the movies. The portrayal of smoking as cool and acceptable is one of the most harmful and pervasive of these messages. Movies in particular show smoking in ways that appeal to youth, but often do not show the deadly health consequences. Recent data is bringing the problem into clear focus. Despite the fact that fewer and fewer people are smoking in real life, there has been a significant increase of smoking in recent movies. Eighty percent of PG-13 rated movies, targeted directly to young people, contain tobacco (Thumbs Up Thumbs Down, a program of the American Lung Association of Sacramento). Leading actors light up in 60% of all movies produced; furthermore, if the movie shows tobacco products the rate of leading actors lighting up increases to 82%. When young people begin experimenting with tobacco, they often do not have the facts on the subliminal and manipulative messages they receive from the movie industry and the greater marketing field. And, once they make the decision to smoke, they are vulnerable to addiction,which often lasts a lifetime. Therefore, it is important to provide young people with the facts about tobacco’s dangers, the knowledge about the subliminal and sneaky messages they receive from the movie industry and the skills to take a stand against the tobacco industry’s manipulation.

Daftendirekt

BeQuiet wrote: »

Nice phrasing !! Classy !


And a logic flaw - you think its "lacking in personal responsibility" to call for a discussion on banning / restricting what can be shown in movies to protect people from smoking ... can you see your error ?

I have no problem with calling for a discussion on anything. My point was that it's such a ridiculous idea, that it doesn't warrant discussing.


Fast food is bad for you. Let's ban fast food from movies.

Excessive coffee drinking is bad for you. Let's ban coffee drinking from movies.

Sleeping longer than 8 hours a night can (apparently) reduce your life expectancy. Let's ban lie-ins from movies

Skateboarding without a helmet is bad for you. Let's ban skateboarding from movies.

Chocolate is bad for you. Let's ban chocolate from movies.

Coca Cola is bad for you. Lets ban Coke from movies.

And don't even think about making a movie with illegal drugs in it. Sorry Trainspotting fans, the fun's over.



Or alternatively:


Let film makers make their movies the way they want, and people can decide whether they want to take the risks associated with these activities for themselves. Let the parents decide what their kids can and can't see.

W123-80's

BeQuiet wrote: »

Therefore, it is important to provide young people with the facts about tobacco’s dangers.

The most sensible thing you have quoted since opening this thread.

pug_

Daftendirekt wrote: »

I have no problem with calling for a discussion on anything. My point was that it's such a ridiculous idea, that it doesn't warrant discussing.


Fast food is bad for you. Let's ban fast food from movies.

Excessive coffee drinking is bad for you. Let's ban coffee drinking from movies.

Sleeping longer than 8 hours a night can (apparently) reduce your life expectancy. Let's ban lie-ins from movies

Skateboarding without a helmet is bad for you. Let's ban skateboarding from movies.

Chocolate is bad for you. Let's ban chocolate from movies.

Coca Cola is bad for you. Lets ban Coke from movies.

And don't even think about making a movie with illegal drugs in it. Sorry Trainspotting fans, the fun's over.



Or alternatively:


Let film makers make their movies the way they want, and people can decide whether they want to take the risks associated with these activities for themselves. Let the parents decide what their kids can and can't see.

I think you're missing a very important point from the OP. I don't believe he's saying he wants to ban all films that contain smoking. He's saying he has objections to films aimed at kids that contain scenes of people smoking without any real character or plot reason for it.

So it doesn't affect your trainspotting type films or any films aimed at a more mature audience, or even films where smoking is considered appropriate (historical etc). But films like The Ant Bully for example. Can you give one reason why a cartoon aimed at small children should have characters in it that smoke?

Even if there was a warning at the start of a children's film informing parents that the film contains scenes that glamorises smoking it might be something, but at the moment there is nothing, it's treated as okay to promote smoking. This is something I can't see any real justification for as there is no artistic reasoning behind it, it's got nothing to do with plot development etc, so why do it in a kids movie at all?

Purple Gorilla

BeQuiet wrote: »

Am totally anti the Nanny state myself.... but this is to protect young people / kids ... and whats the downside of it ? .. that we cannot watch actors smoking - so what ?

In case it hasn't been said yet (I didn't read the whole thread), the downside is that Ireland isn't exactly a major market for films to be released in. Director's aren't going to edit out smoking scenes to suit our country so it will end up with the average Paddy paying for this crap law as most new films just won't be released here.

Ardent

Daftendirekt wrote: »

I have no problem with calling for a discussion on anything. My point was that it's such a ridiculous idea, that it doesn't warrant discussing.


Fast food is bad for you. Let's ban fast food from movies.

Excessive coffee drinking is bad for you. Let's ban coffee drinking from movies.

Sleeping longer than 8 hours a night can (apparently) reduce your life expectancy. Let's ban lie-ins from movies

Skateboarding without a helmet is bad for you. Let's ban skateboarding from movies.

Chocolate is bad for you. Let's ban chocolate from movies.

Coca Cola is bad for you. Lets ban Coke from movies.

You're missing the point. All those things you mention above, you can take it or leave it. Cigarettes, on the other hand, often result in a lifetime physical addiction.

And don't even think about making a movie with illegal drugs in it. Sorry Trainspotting fans, the fun's over.

Trainspotting didn't glamourise drugs. It did the opposite.

ShooterSF

BeQuiet wrote: »

From TIME mag website : http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1566401,00.html

Do movies aimed at kids glamorize smoking? The American Medical Association (AMA) Alliance, the 26,000-member volunteer arm of the AMA, thinks so. And while everybody else is busy compiling Ten Best Lists for 2006, this socially responsible Grinch has been busy figuring out what's worst. For the holiday season, it has released a blacklist of no-nos for parents to consider as they are loading up stockings with DVDs. The following recent films, according to the AMA Alliance, contain an excessive amount of smoking:
* The Ant Bully (PG: Time Warner, animated)
* Material Girls (PG: Sony)
* Talladega Nights (PG-13: Sony)
* Pirates of the Caribbean 2 (PG-13: Disney)
* Stay Alive (PG-13: Disney)
* Superman Returns (PG-13: Time Warner)
* You, Me and Dupree (PG-13: General Electric, Universal

I forget, what do the letters PG mean?