Smoking Earns Movies an R Rating?
- Thread starter litup
- Start date
- Status
Ratings? Who here is going to be affected? I know at 70 I'm not. These days I wait for "big screen" movies to go to DVD/TV and watch at home on my big screen without the bother of noisy viewers, sticky seats, etc.
The rating is a solution for which there was no problem.
The rating is a solution for which there was no problem.
I don't mean to be especially cynical, but I don't think movie ratings have much sway. If a kid wants to see a movie for some reason, he will. GP or Triple X. Young kids are raised with digital devices and have learned to "think that way," unlike this old geezer who can't even post pictures on Forums despite endless clear instructions on the subject. So this R rating for movies with smoking is more a philosophical discussion among ratings committees and the public, sound and fury signifying nothing. Years ago, I saw a movie with two woman movie stars; it had a feminist message, but one of the big shared activities between these friends was sucking up cigarettes. This was not a gentled puff, this was sucking the smoke into their toes. Hey, I like pipes and cigars, and so I tolerate cigarettes and vaping, but this seemed pretty overt in peddling nails as a feminist rallying point, and I thought that was pretty poor screen writing, directing, and in fact acting. Especially since I believe both these actors are non-smokers off screen. But an R rating? Huh.
A valid point. Anyone that's smoking shouldn't have their movie-watching choices impacted by an R rating. However, I'm trying not to get hyperbolic/tin foil hat-ish here, but I see the completion of this sort of restriction as another form of censorship. It's a group of people saying "this is bad" so they do what they can to make it a bad economic decision for movie studios to include smoking since an R rating generally means fewer people can see the movie in a theater.
Once they get smoking out of movies, out of public parks, out of advertising, out of eBay, out of people's rented dwellings, they're that much closer to making it illegal everywhere. I guess the question, for me, is where do we draw the line in the sand or do we just keep letting the government redraw the line for us? Will we have enough sand left to dig our heels in when they decide to make it impossible to smoke in our homes and backyards?
You can dig in your heels anytime you wish. But, the fact of the matter is, general society doesn't like smoking or smokers. As there are absolutely no positives to smoking, should society determine that smoking shall cease... smoking shall cease. It's an indefensible diversion with relatively few, in the Western World, adherents.
I think smoking will die a natural death when production becomes uneconomical. It'll become very expensive, akin to what it was a couple hundred years ago. If you have the money and the inclination you'll be able to smoke, most likely only in your own home or a club with other smokers. People simply won't want to be around the reek of the smokers.
I think smoking will die a natural death when production becomes uneconomical. It'll become very expensive, akin to what it was a couple hundred years ago. If you have the money and the inclination you'll be able to smoke, most likely only in your own home or a club with other smokers. People simply won't want to be around the reek of the smokers.
Oh! The ones making the bad economical choice are we, the smokers. I mean sitting around, relaxing in our arm chairs, listening to music and watching our hard earned moneys waft up to the ceiling or blowing smoke rings... that is a poor economic choice. One I've made and am happy with, but a poor decision none the less.
I wouldn't rent to a smoker as it costs too much to refurbish when they move. I wouldn't buy a used car in which someone smoked, I don't care how much ozone cleaning the dealer did. And, I have no problem when someone keeps their distance from me due to the reek of stale smoke clinging to my clothes.
It's a choice not a right. Choices have consequences which I accept.
I wouldn't rent to a smoker as it costs too much to refurbish when they move. I wouldn't buy a used car in which someone smoked, I don't care how much ozone cleaning the dealer did. And, I have no problem when someone keeps their distance from me due to the reek of stale smoke clinging to my clothes.
It's a choice not a right. Choices have consequences which I accept.
There's an argument for such a position. 
Sadly, it wouldn't stand up of course or, I could still burn up my money with fireworks, own a full sized toilet, use incandescent bulbs, and... shoot trespassers, among other activities I'd happily pursue.
Sadly, it wouldn't stand up of course or, I could still burn up my money with fireworks, own a full sized toilet, use incandescent bulbs, and... shoot trespassers, among other activities I'd happily pursue.Leads us to the question "What is a right, versus a privilege?", and where can we find a list of these two things? It seems, for all practical purposes, flowery historical documents aside, they are the same thing, and defined as "anything you can do without the state you live under fining, imprisoning, or killing you for".
True. Taking the view that a "right" is, by definition, immutable, not subject to provisos or restrictions, then it should be entirely removed from the lexicon as the dirty little tease that it is. If a "right" can be restricted in its scope, it is surely not a right, but an administered privilege, at the pleasure of those who, to paraphrase Warren Zevon, have the most lawyers, guns, and money.
Rights, even so called immutable rights, are continually modified/redefined, even discarded through the whims of society by their votes or lack of and/or, their actions or lack of. Some think the US Constitution is etched in stone. It isn't. Even the constructors provided methods for changing the document as dictated by the voters and the judicial side of the triangle.
It's worth noting that film ratings in the U.S. have nothing whatever to do with the government. The MPAA is a Hollywood Trade Association, and the "enforcers" are primarily theater associations, distributors, and other consumer-facing businesses. Businesses we can choose to support with our money, or not. Businesses that can choose to serve us, or not. You have the right to make a movie, you have the right to depict smoking, drug use, sex, profanity, violence, etc. You have the right to waive an MPAA rating--and the theater has the right not to screen it, if they wish. Most choose not to screen unrated films.
In Tennessee, an R-rating carries the force of law. Personally, I think someone should challenge that. I also think you should be able to buy a whiskey in Lynchburg, and a sex toy in Alabama. You can't...So that's where I direct MY ire. :D Thank goodness I live in Iowa. :
:
In Tennessee, an R-rating carries the force of law. Personally, I think someone should challenge that. I also think you should be able to buy a whiskey in Lynchburg, and a sex toy in Alabama. You can't...So that's where I direct MY ire. :D Thank goodness I live in Iowa. :
:
Have done all of those in the past five years, and have never seen a day of court. Maybe they just think they can't fix me. :mrgreen:
As it all winds down, everything is a cash-in. Since nothing can be done about The Problem, people love scapegoats. It advances their careers.
- Status