Ban movies that glamorise smoking?

pug_

Parental Guidance assumes that parents knows what they are guiding their children from. Did you know there was smoking in The Ant Bully? I certainly didn't, and if I brought my kids to see it I wouldn't know until it came up as it's not part of the classification to mention smoking.

[EDIT] In case you're wondering, here is the certification standards...

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

And no smoking does not come under the drugs catagory. For proof, look here for The Ant Bully certification which was given a Gen cert...

http://www.ifco.ie/Website/IFCO/ifcoweb.nsf/SearchViewFilm/39E8DEBA1A154C95802571BE005CE857?OpenDocument&OpenUp=True

Riskymove

Ardent wrote: »

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

exactly

its about "glamorising"

someone mentioned Corrie and people going to the pub; in fairness to programmes like that, while people are often in the pub, drunkeness is usually portrayed in a bad light resulting in problems and so on.

films like "The Lost Weekend" are an example of showing the effects of alcohol addiction and there are many other films on similiar lines which would be silly if no drinking appeared in them.

W123-80's

pug_ wrote: »

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?

By the above logic should all scenes containing any images or mention of fast food and other such rubbish grub also be banned from movies/cartoons, or at least carry a health warning at the start of the movie.

"The following movie contains scenes of smoking and KFC consumption, both are very, very, very bad for your health"

Fast Food - McDonnells/KFC etc.. is a health hazard for kids. A serious one.

Don't get me wrong, I hate smoking & Fast Food with a passion and I would consider them on a par in terms of the dangers they pose to a childs health.

Education, education and more education about the dangers posed. In an open an honest manner. No hiding.

pug_

I never mentioned banning. And to my mind smoking and fast food are two very different things. Apart from the obvious social and legal differences between the two advertising of cigarettes is prohibited, and I can personally see absolutely no reason why a cartoon character in a children's film would smoke.

humanji

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

Talledega Nights, Stay Alive and You, Me and Dupree aren't movies aimed at children.

Superman Returns has an anti-smoking part in it.

I can't remember any smoking in Pirates of the Caribbean 2. Do any of the leads smoke?

It just looks like those are films that had smoking in them and low certs. None of them glamorise smoking at all.

pug wrote:

Parental Guidance assumes that parents knows what they are guiding their children from. Did you know there was smoking in The Ant Bully? I certainly didn't, and if I brought my kids to see it I wouldn't know until it came up as it's not part of the classification to mention smoking.

[EDIT] In case you're wondering, here is the certification standards...

http://www.ifco.ie/website/ifco/ifco...t&type=graphic

And no smoking does not come under the drugs catagory. For proof, look here for The Ant Bully certification which was given a Gen cert...

http://www.ifco.ie/Website/IFCO/ifco...nt&OpenUp=True

The idea of Parental Guidance is that the parent is meant to find out about a film and then decide if their child should see it. The parent can see what the film was rated for, in these examples PG-13 can contain horror violence, disturbing images, language, brief sexual and drug content. If a parent doesn't make an effort to find this information out, then they've nobody to blame but themselves.

pug_

humanji wrote: »

The idea of Parental Guidance is that the parent is meant to find out about a film and then decide if their child should see it. The parent can see what the film was rated for, in these examples PG-13 can contain horror violence, disturbing images, language, brief sexual and drug content. If a parent doesn't make an effort to find this information out, then they've nobody to blame but themselves.

Read the second part of that post the certification process does not (see I can make things bold too) cover smoking. The certs tell you why they are given a certain classification so for things that are excluded from clasification there is no way of finding out if they contain smoking without sitting through the film first.

W123-80's

pug_ wrote: »

I can personally see absolutely no reason why a cartoon character in a children's film would smoke.

Unless Baby Herman is the star of your movie..;)
http://www.louhirsch.com/baby2.htm

Maybe a change on the thread title?

I think the OP agrees that banning smoking movies is extreme.

humanji

Actually sorry, I misread your post. But it's still up to the parent to find out this information. If that means watching a film before hand, then it has to be done. If the parent doesn't have time, then they should let their kid see the movie.

And my second point still stands that none of those films I listed glamourise smoking. It's taking things out of context and trying to make a campaig against them.

pug_

Here's the thing. I doubt I'd stop my kids watching a film if there was a scene with a character smoking in it, but if as the op is suggesting it's becoming more pervasive and there are more and more films with smoking characters and an audience made up of children it becomes less acceptable.

For those few hours a person is in front of the screen you have a captive audience made to feel certain emotions through music, directing, editing etc. It stands to reason that if a child is faced with characters who smoke when they go to the cinema, and if it happens enough it's entirely possible it might have an influence on them no matter how small.

As a parent it's something I wouldn't mind knowing about because if it turned out that 50% of the films kids ended up watching had smoking in them it might well be something of valid concern. I'm not saying 50% of films have smoking btw I'm just illustrating a point.

And the argument that a parent should watch a film before allowing their kids to see it is ridiculous believe it or not parents have more to do with their time and the alternative of not allowing the kids to watch a film just in case it contains smoking is worse as that means a complete ban on all films for probably no reason.

humanji

pug_ wrote: »

Here's the thing. I doubt I'd stop my kids watching a film if there was a scene with a character smoking in it, but if as the op is suggesting it's becoming more pervasive and there are more and more films with smoking characters and an audience made up of children it becomes less acceptable.

For those few hours a person is in front of the screen you have a captive audience made to feel certain emotions through music, directing, editing etc. It stands to reason that if a child is faced with characters who smoke when they go to the cinema, and if it happens enough it's entirely possible it might have an influence on them no matter how small.

As a parent it's something I wouldn't mind knowing about because if it turned out that 50% of the films kids ended up watching had smoking in them it might well be something of valid concern. I'm not saying 50% of films have smoking btw I'm just illustrating a point.

I'd agree to an extent that an increase in smoking in films would be something to be looked into (personally, I'd of thought it was on the decrease), but it's the context of the smoking that's of concern. You'll rarely if ever, get a hero in a kids movie smoking.

It's the characters who are undesirable or who are generally there not to be emulated, that would smoke. Smoking is used as a way pointing out that someone is flawed and the days of heroes lighting up after killing the bad guy are long gone.

Smoking isn't glamourised in kids movies, so there's no need to ban it.

pug_ wrote: »

And the argument that a parent should watch a film before allowing their kids to see it is ridiculous believe it or not parents have more to do with their time and the alternative of not allowing the kids to watch a film just in case it contains smoking is worse as that means a complete ban on all films for probably no reason.

It may seem ridiculous, but you're still responsible for what films you let your child see. I can't imagine any parents having to time to view films before hand, but there are sites like http://www.kids-in-mind.com/ which try to do all the work for you. Again, though, you have to take their word for it that there's nothing in there that you personally disagree with (and that site can be a little on the overly-safe side).

pug_

I don't think that context is everything when it comes to films. A lot of kids favourite characters in films are the bad guys, and no matter how they are portrayed they are still portraying people that smoke, and enough exposure to anything makes it become more the norm. Most kids start out thinking smoking is bad and don't like it, as they get older if they are exposed to it in any form their curiosity can be peaked and they begin to wonder what the attraction is.

As for the numbers of films that contain smoking, here's an interesting quote from the article in time...

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

I think we'll just agree to disagree on the parenting responsibility aspect of it because if you don't see the impracticality of it as a realistic solution there's not really much point emphasising the point again

BeQuiet

ShooterSF wrote: »

I forget, what do the letters PG mean?

Parental Guidance

humanji

It's very important to note the phrasing of that quote:

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

Youth-rated, not youth targeted. If they were all childrens films, then there might be something to complain about, but they were movies that simply were mild enough in the sex,drugs,violence and foul language categories to not get a higher rating.

That's the point I'm making. The articles and statistics are anti-smoking orientated and are phrased to exagerate the situation. If I got statistics from the tobacco companies, they'd be skewed the other way.

There are no recent childrens movies that glamourise smoking. I don't even know if there are any films that glamourise smoking at all. The OP was claiming that tobacco companies are behind an increase in smoking in films. Personally, I think that's more suited to the conspiracy theories forum.

Now, don't get me wrong. I do think that in a kids-orientated movie, there shouldn't be any smoking in it. But the OP first wanted all smoking to be banned, then scenes deleted or warnings on screen. All I want is for people to have a little cop on as to what they're showing to kids and for parents to be aware of what their kids see.

BeQuiet

humanji wrote: »

Smoking isn't glamourised in kids movies, so there's no need to ban it.

Not usually in movies for young kids, but in movies aimed at teenagers + young adults - it is glamourised , and often in very subtle ways.

Especially in an environment where the the viewer is relaxed, in a receptive and non-critical frame of mind. Perhaps they are at a stage of life when they very much want to be accepted by peers, and be seen as "cool".... they may be lacking in confidence, or feel like an outsider....
(Actually all of above might apply to most teenagers now that i think about it ?)

And then they see someone like Leonardo DiCaprio , Brad Pitt or Julia Roberts light up, looking so cool... it really does have a powerful effect ... and totally sub consious ...

Theyre a nasty bunch the tobacco industry :mad:


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.

BeQuiet

pug_ wrote: »

For those few hours a person is in front of the screen you have a captive audience made to feel certain emotions through music, directing, editing etc. It stands to reason that if a child is faced with characters who smoke when they go to the cinema, and if it happens enough it's entirely possible it might have an influence on them no matter how small.

.

Right on !

pug_

humanji wrote: »

It's very important to note the phrasing of that quote:



Youth-rated, not youth targeted. If they were all childrens films, then there might be something to complain about, but they were movies that simply were mild enough in the sex,drugs,violence and foul language categories to not get a higher rating.

That's the point I'm making. The articles and statistics are anti-smoking orientated and are phrased to exagerate the situation. If I got statistics from the tobacco companies, they'd be skewed the other way.

There are no recent childrens movies that glamourise smoking. I don't even know if there are any films that glamourise smoking at all. The OP was claiming that tobacco companies are behind an increase in smoking in films. Personally, I think that's more suited to the conspiracy theories forum.

Now, don't get me wrong. I do think that in a kids-orientated movie, there shouldn't be any smoking in it. But the OP first wanted all smoking to be banned, then scenes deleted or warnings on screen. All I want is for people to have a little cop on as to what they're showing to kids and for parents to be aware of what their kids see.

I think we might be in broad agreement then. The only point I'd really disagree with is the glamorisation part. I'm not convinced that that's the only way to influence someone I think a person can be influenced no matter how it's portrayed.

I do agree that the original proposition from the OP was a bit well... mad, but when you take it down to the level of children's films (possibly even minors films in general) I think there may well be a case for the film industry to answer from the anti-smoking lobby.

Having said that I'm not convinced myself that the level of smoking in films is as bad as the OP is suggesting, I've done absolutely zero research on it, and I have to admit to playing devils advocate a bit to see what arguments are thrown up. Overall and in all honesty I'd put my feelings on the subject as being mildly curious but not overly concerned. If however there were evidence that it was a big problem my stance might change.

Daftendirekt

pug_ wrote: »

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?

Fair enough, I didn't realise we were discussing kids films here.

I still stand by my point though. Who decides when it's appropriate or not? The only cartoon smoker that springs to mind right now is Captain Hook (smoked a pipe, didn't he?). Was his pipe smoking just a character trait, or does it warrant a good ol' fashioned, nanny state censoring?

Admittedly not the best example ever, but you get my drift.

I think when we're discussing kid-related issues, it's less about personal responsibility and more about parental responsibility. Kids' movies are given the PG certificate for this reason, so the parents can decide whether they want their children exposed to the content of a movie or not.

Ardent wrote: »

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.

I very much disagree. For starters, fast food is suspected (though not proven) to be addictive, and coffee is addictive.

More to the point, why is addiction the only health risk worth protecting our kids from? A taste for fast food and chocolate developed early in childhood could leave the child obese and unhealthy. A taste for extreme sports or even violence (something found in plentiful supply in children's movies), could render him her disabled. Are these things not equally as harmful to a child's well being, or even more harmful?

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

You're right here, I just couldn't think of a better example offhand. Great movie all the same

Nodin

Ardent wrote: »

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.

So we ban anyone from doing anything in case somebody else does it as well. I'm glad we've come to a conclusion we can all live with.

pug_

Daftendirekt wrote: »

I think when we're discussing kid-related issues, it's less about personal responsibility and more about parental responsibility. Kids' movies are given the PG certificate for this reason, so the parents can decide whether they want their children exposed to the content of a movie or not.

And there in lies the problem. Take the Ant Bully for example. In Ireland this was given a Gen cert not PG meaning it's suitable for viewing by all audiences yet it contains smoking. Even if it was given a PG cert that's still not an indication of whether a film portrays smoking or not. When a film is given a PG cert a parent can check to see the reasons why it was given that particular certificate and based on the reasoning given can make a decision as to whether it's suitable for their child or not. Because smoking is not covered by this a parent has no way of knowing if a film contains scenes showing people smoking or not.

Daftendirekt

pug_ wrote: »

And there in lies the problem. Take the Ant Bully for example. In Ireland this was given a Gen cert not PG meaning it's suitable for viewing by all audiences yet it contains smoking. Even if it was given a PG cert that's still not an indication of whether a film portrays smoking or not. When a film is given a PG cert a parent can check to see the reasons why it was given that particular certificate and based on the reasoning given can make a decision as to whether it's suitable for their child or not. Because smoking is not covered by this a parent has no way of knowing if a film contains scenes showing people smoking or not.

I haven't seen Ant Bully, so I can't comment on that one in particular.

So why not simply have IFCO give movies that contain smoking a PG rating, rather than banning it entirely? Most movies tend to have a table on the back of the DVD case detailing the kind of sex, violence, drug use, etc. in the movie anyway. It'd be no big deal to stick smoking on this as well.

pug_

I never once mentioned banning, and if you read through the thread you'll see that the OP has come down from the banning position too. As I've already said PG cert does not cover smoking giving parents no idea if it's in the film or not. This has already been discussed...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61082706&postcount=92
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61084619&postcount=97
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61084897&postcount=100

ArmaniJeanss

pug_ wrote: »

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?

pug_ wrote: »

Take the Ant Bully for example. In Ireland this was given a Gen cert not PG meaning it's suitable for viewing by all audiences yet it contains smoking.

Just a quick point in this trainwreck of a thread.
According to this site, which explains to parents just what is in a film before they bring their children to it..
http://www.commonsensemedia.org/movie-reviews/Ant-Bully.html
.. The Ant Bully contains a scene where The Exterminator (which in a film about ants we can safely assume is the ultimate bad guy) smokes a cigar.

So surely this would be smoking being viewed in a hugely negative light?

*****
As an aside it sounds like a bit of a nod to the first chapter of WatershipDown where Fiver the young rabbit is deeply suspicious of the men who come to the warren with 'fire in their mouths' and turn out to be builders intent on redeveloping his field.

Another book/film to be placed on the bonfire?

pug_

As I've already stated in the very first sentence of the post just above yours I NEVER MENTIONED BANNING! (sorry for the shout but I feel like I'm talking to myself on that point).

I've also already mentioned that I'm not convinced that the only way to influence someone is to portray smoking in a positive light. Maybe have a read of what's been said in the previous few pages before contributing to the trainwreck.

As for the aside, this is a Hollywood film I kind of doubt there is a nod to anything in it let alone something as subtle as one line from a book. But lets assume it is I can think of many many better ways of acknowledging a classic than by singling out the part where some of the characters are smoking.

jabbertalky

How can you ban all the films with smoking, you'd have no films left at all then :pac::pac:

Ardent

Daftendirekt wrote: »

I very much disagree. For starters, fast food is suspected (though not proven) to be addictive, and coffee is addictive.

More to the point, why is addiction the only health risk worth protecting our kids from?

Firstly, addiction isn't a disease. Secondly, preventing addiction to nicotine in kids is very important - nicotine addiction results in a lifetime of slavery to cigarettes, in most cases anyway. Lastly, cigarettes kill.

I just did a quick google on tobacco advertising in movies and found this very interesting article:

http://www.prwatch.org/node/8311

To summarise - kids who watch movies where cigarette smoking is depicted are twice as likely to become smokers than those who don't. The conclusion is that major film studios are "delivering the most new adolescent smokers to the tobacco industry."

It's all pretty obvious tbh.

Ardent

jabbertalky wrote: »

How can you ban all the films with smoking, you'd have no films left at all then :pac::pac:

No-one's talking about banning. We're talking about removing tobacco product placement from movies going forward.

Are people still getting hung up on this. If we were to take everythign out of film which may have a negative impact on viewers then we would end up watching a blank screen for you can guarantee that there's a group somewhere who will take offence with even the smallest thing.

Someone mentioned, the films of DeCaprio, Travolta, etc and how they feature smoking. If i'm not mistaken the vast majority of their films are rated 15s and 18s. They are films for adults and as such feature adult content.

Has our government not helped glamourise smoking? They moved a lot of smoking inside pubs out onto the streets, surely if a kid see this it may encourage them to take up smoking.

Daftendirekt

Ardent wrote: »

Firstly, addiction isn't a disease. Secondly, preventing addiction to nicotine in kids is very important - nicotine addiction results in a lifetime of slavery to cigarettes, in most cases anyway. Lastly, cigarettes kill.

Don't think I said it was a disease. And neither is obesity, or any of the other things I mentioned.

Stokes

We could just superimpose lollipops over cigarettes.

Then again the dentristry lobby might have something to say...