More Hollywood Studios Say ‘No Smoking’

[rkzenrage]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/01/busin ... nzv9Kr20fw
More Hollywood Studios Say ‘No Smoking’

LOS ANGELES, Sept. 30 — In the movie musical “Dreamgirlsâ€￾ last year, James “Thunderâ€￾ Early, Eddie Murphy’s soul-singing, chain-smoking character, was so infuriated by a fumbled food order that he mashed his cigarette into a chicken sandwich that was supposed to have no mayonnaise.

Alan Markfield/Fox Searchlight Pictures
The film “Waitress,â€￾ where smoking is seen, was produced independently and acquired by Fox.
That portrayal and scene could still fly these days at DreamWorks, which made the movie. But if Universal Pictures were to produce the movie today, Mr. Murphy might consider having his character switch to chewing gum.

Fucking morons.
I'm so astounded by the level of stupidity that I'm speechless.

[ken worley]

Whether they want to be or not, actors are role models to the young.

I am against censorship, but I think the studios should take a pro-active stance in eliminating scenes depicting these role models smoking.

It shouldn't take away from the plot, or alter the "vision" of the movie much, and so isn't really a free speech issue, IMO.


If you are worried about the delicate artistic integrity of these "artistes", consider this.

Although tobacco advertisement has been banned in this country for some decades, many other countries, such as Brazil, Japan, and many many third-world nations allow them.
And our tobacco co.'s, smelling the way the wind is blowing here, have shifted a great deal of their ad budgets overseas, to hook the peoples of other cultures at a nice young age, and maintain a customer base which is dwindling domestically.(due to legislation, customer education, and, let's face it, death.)

Many of our popular hollywood icons and music stars happily accept money to appear in tv commercials and print ads in these countries, even if they themselves do not smoke.

How's that for integrity?

You can search the keywords on google to see which of our enlightened artistes/social activists have done this stunt.




On a related note, has anyone counted the number of times per hour a character on prime-time CBS shows proudly refers to alcohol dependency?

I can tell that they are heavily sponsored by the alcohol lobby..
"Whew! I need a drink!" is repeated so often on this network's shows, it is noticeable....

Does anyone think the practice of "soft" advertising for "adult" products should be regulated?

("soft" refers to product placement/use in scenes, and references in the script.)


The insidious thing about the alcohol "advertised" thusly, is that a consortium of brewers and distillers uses a lobby pool/fund to buy these precious moments, so no one company can be blamed.

(like the Las Vegas tourist and visitors bureau collects money from many hotel/casinos, and pools the money to, say, BUY the Travel Channel for whole weekends at a time.)


If these corporations are going to use sneaky, back-door, insidious means to promote unhealthy products/lifestyles subliminally, perhaps we should take action to legislate it.

I don't enjoy that prospect, as it blurs the lines between public welfare and free expression.

That is why I am happy that a movie studio has the social conscience to voluntarily make it a policy not advertise for these death-peddlers.

I don't think it will ruin movies for me if the characters do not smoke, or drink, or abuse credit cards without consequences/etc, etc.

[ken worley]

I remember the show "Frasier" on NBC as being the first time I noticed the "soft" ads for alcohol consumption.

Everything on that show was an excuse to consume alcohol.
A celebration...."This calls for a drink!"
A stressful event..."I need a Sherry!"
dpression.
Boredom.
marking a turning point.

It became very noticeable.
All of the characters had "drinking character traits"
Many of the plot devices were tied to alcohol.
Martin's favorite beer was being discontinued...'MacGinties' was being torn down...


Here is how the setup works.

Many of the major beer co.'s and distilleries pool money in a lobbying fund.
Originally, this fund was intended to buy influence in congress.
In recent years, it has been expanded, and the people are being lobbied to directly, though subliminally, through popular culture.

This lobby gives money to the networks/movie studios, at a rate of (x dollars per leading character abuse instance), or (x dollars for plot device featuring alcohol dependence)

In this way, laws regarding when and how alcohol is advertised can be skirted.

No one company's product is singled out, so no blame can be placed.


The problems...

1. A general lifestyle of alcohol abuse is advertised, by the friendly faces on our favorite shows, without the usual warning that we are being manipulated, so we can put our 'bullshit shields' up.

2. The shows are becoming increasingly a framework for third-party interests, and the quality goes down.


I believe CBS is the main forum for this now.

"How I met your Mother"
"Two and a Half Men"
"New Adventures of Old Christine"
That new show with the guy who played "Puddy" on "Seinfeld"

watch these shows, paying attention to the number of times, in a mere half-hour, the characters on these shows are shown consuming alcohol, or reminiscing fondly about past uses of alcohol...It is startling.

[rkzenrage]

It is a representation of real life. People smoked in the 50s.
Making Dreamgirls without smoking would have been stupid, just stupid, only stupid. Smoking was more common than it was not.
We going to make Sherlock Holmes now without his pipe, Popeye how about some remakes of great noir detective films without tobacco?
I bet you are one of those nanny state morons that wants to make fatty food illegal, how about not walking to work, soda (ban those from film next?), french fries, large portions, toy guns?
You gonna' pad the world so no parent actually has to teach their kids about reality?
You want alcohol to be illegal and illegal to be represented in any form also?
Art is about the world and people smoke genius.
I smoke in public and don't hide it when kids are present and don't give a fuck if you or anyone else likes it or not.
Move to Europe... they are well on their way to a nanny state.

[ken worley]

....
I bet you are one of those nanny state morons that wants to make fatty food illegal, how about not walking to work, soda (ban those from film next?), french fries, large portions, toy guns?
You gonna' pad the world so no parent actually has to teach their kids about reality?
You want alcohol to be illegal and illegal to be represented in any form also?
Art is about the world and people smoke genius.
I smoke in public and don't hide it when kids are present and don't give a fuck if you or anyone else likes it or not.
Move to Europe... they are well on their way to a nanny state.

Yes. That is exactly who I am. A nanny-moron.
I am a ridiculous cartoon character who wants the government to step in and control every aspect of my life.
That is what I posted, alright.

'Cause, there are only two ways to be. The stupid person you just described, or exactly like you....


Way to delve into the subtleties, there, reactionary-boy.

[rkzenrage]

So... what exactly do you want?
You want the government to step in and stop studios from putting certain images on the screen, but that is not the nanny state?
How silly of me.

[ken worley]

So... what exactly do you want?
You want the government to step in and stop studios from putting certain images on the screen, but that is not the nanny state?
How silly of me.

Show where, in my posts, I said this.

Try actually reading the posts, before you get all insulting and self-righteous, please.

[rkzenrage]

IT'S FOR THA' CHILLIN WE MUST CRUSH!!!!! Our rights are meaningless, parents are meaningless, teaching them about their own minds and choice is meaninless... RUN... RUNNNNNN!!!!!!

Answer the question.
What exactly do you want?

[ken worley]

I answered the question...In my first post in this thread.
You raced through, embracing your chosen assumption, so you could self-righteously condemn my short-sighted stupidity, and therefore missed it.


Here it is, all by itself, so you can comprehend it easily.

If these corporations are going to use sneaky, back-door, insidious means to promote unhealthy products/lifestyles subliminally, perhaps we should take action to legislate it.

I don't enjoy that prospect, as it blurs the lines between public welfare and free expression.

That is why I am happy that a movie studio has the social conscience to voluntarily make it a policy not advertise for these death-peddlers.

I am going to chalk up your ignorant and reactionary response to your medications, and your medical fears.

If you choose to calm down, and discuss this subject in detail, intelligently, fine.

If you wish to continue to ignore what I actually post, and simply use me as a puppet/target to spout the bombastic rhetoric you are aching to have the opportunity to spout, I'll simply begin to ignore your posts.


Censorship, media responsibility, and social awareness of insidious ad practice is a complicated issue, with many subtle shades of gray, and should provide for an interesting discussion, if we can act respectfully toward one another.

You cited Sherlock Holmes earlier.
A pipe was not his only vice.
ACDoyle wrote the character as a cocaine afficianado.

Say a studio makes a modern day Sherlock, starring Vin Diesel as a muscular, attractive Holmes, who gets all the pussy, is respected by all the good guys, feared by all the bad guys, and generally charms the pants off everyone.

Near the end of the movie, as things look darkest, he heats up a spoon of cocaine, injects it, sits back with a rapturous look, and BOOM! Inspiration! Solves the case.

This would be quite true to ACD's written stories.

All the children lucky enough to have attentive/intelligent/caring parents, who monitor what they watch, could explain to these lucky children how this is unacceptable behavior.

All those kids without such parents are, I guess free to try to "be like mike".


Should this be? NO

Should the government dictate what is allowed go in a script? NO

Should the studios voluntarily start developing a social conscience, and using a little morality over greed in their productions?....YES


That is my answer....Also,


..... I would personally support some tax money be used for funding social awareness programs to teach people critical thinking skills, and to warn them of these insidious ad practices, and a grass-roots push to pressure studios/networks to put social responsibility, and the health of their audience above short-term monetary gain.

[rkzenrage]

Say a studio makes a modern day Sherlock, starring Vin Diesel as a muscular, attractive Holmes, who gets all the pussy, is respected by all the good guys, feared by all the bad guys, and generally charms the pants off everyone.

Near the end of the movie, as things look darkest, he heats up a spoon of cocaine, injects it, sits back with a rapturous look, and BOOM! Inspiration! Solves the case.

Holmes never used during a case, only when bored between them, so the film would not be about Holmes.

If that was the way the script was written by the artist, I would have no issue with it. I am sure it would get an appropriate rating and would parent my child accordingly... I don't need the studio to.

Are you naive enough to believe that no actual espionage agents use drugs?

Are you as passionate about Nike and Adidas in films? LOL!

Nice low one bringing my medical condition into it bigot.

[ken worley]

.....
If that was the way the script was written by the artist, I would have no issue with it. I am sure it would get an appropriate rating and would parent my child accordingly... I don't need the studio to.

I still do not see what you are objecting to.
It is not the government telling the studios what to edit.

It is the studio deciding to eliminate scenes of substance abuse, so as to avoid glamorizing such behavior.
Believe me, they don't make these decisions based on a "nanny" minority.....If they are starting to moderate their social responsibility level, it is because they have done the polling samples, and know the majority is shifting towards a lowered tolerance for such unhealthy youth-influencing behaviors in films/tv.


So, if it isn't government censorship, is it the studios policies influencing the "artistic integrity" of the script?

What about soft ad dollars that pour in from the alcohol, tobacco, and gun lobbies, whereby studios/production companies are paid money for including a predetermined number of uses of their products/positive script references to their products?
I daresay that practice is more constricting to the writing/direction of films/tv shows than an effort to eliminate images of heroic smokers in teen/child films is.

Are you as passionate about Nike and Adidas in films? LOL!

I am against corporations sneaking commercials through the "back door"
into films/tv shows. In the case of products like clothing, which are health-neutral, I am not too impassioned, no.

But products which have the ability to damage the health of impressionable young people, who aren't even aware they are being programmed?...Starting at the low end of the spectrum, like sodas and junk food, progressing up the ladder towards cigarettes, gambling, alcohol, guns...

I am still against goverment interference in the creative process...But the real government* of this society, (the corporations) has already hijacked the movie/tv industry to some extent through these sub-textual ad practices.

I don't want to see congress or the courts legislating what can be shown on tv/movie screens. I do believe it would be a good thing, however, for the "nanny-types", as I guess you think of them, to organize grass-roots-type pressure to get the highly influential megaliths of movie and tv land to stop sacrificing the future health of us citizens, just to have one more way to cash in.

Nice low one bringing my medical condition into it bigot.

I am not a bigot...I am just very familiar with your usual pattern of acting like a dick, then coming back a day or two later to apologize, citing your medical condition/medications as an excuse.

I was merely pre-empting the pattern by citing these as a possible reason for your sarcasm and denigration for my posts, thus saving you the trouble of apologizing later.


If I were a bigot, I'd be treating you with kid gloves right now, due to your illness, whatever that might be.(I don't know exactly what it is.)
Instead, I am, and have been, responding to your insulting tone as I would to anyone else who posted as you did...



* IMO, the major corporate entities have a greater influence on public policy in this country than the people do, through their elected representatives....By this, I refer both to influence in actual legislation, and influence by steering of the public consciousness/perception through manipulation of media outlets, both news and entertainment.....

[ken worley]

Upon further reflection, I will also add that, even though I would not want the government to enact legislation saying that studios cannot weaselishly accept ad dollars to script tobacco/alcohol/gambling/guns into their shows and movies, I would vote for legislation requiring them to announce at the beginning of the show, that ad dollars were accepted, from whom, and that the script includes plot/dialogue integrated advertisements.


I am all for freedom, and if a studio or network is evil enough to sell out it's audience's health for money, that is their right.
However, I feel the consumer also has the right to be informed of what they are being "fed", to level the playing field, and prevent the danger that subtextual/subliminal ad techniques could creep up on them unannounced.

[rkzenrage]

I don't like the ads either, I am against legislating against them and support studios saying they won't take the ads.
That is not what this is about... it is about the wholesale removal of something that has been an integral part of humanity since it's discovery from art because of a few loud busybodies... it is a mental illness.

BTW, both the BBC's radio and television shows mentioned Holme's drug use. I own them all. People should be given the choice to decide for themselves and BE parents.

[ken worley]

Re: a loud fringe...As I opined before, I believe the networks and studios know better than anyone what way the winds of public opinion are shifting...If it was merely a radical fringe of loudmouthed activist/thought police, the studios wouldn't care.




Re: staying on topic.

The two subjects sort of tie in together.

They both come down to youth programming, and subtextual advertisement/glamorization.(And how the entertainment industry should responsibly handle their position of great influence.)

Official or not, the entertainment industry has a HUGE influence on young peoples' perceptions of how the "real world" IS. (perhaps the greatest in their sphere)

If every prime time show that children and teens see depicts attractive, healthy, sexually successful, financially successful people, all of whom drink copiously, without any serious consequences....

(I forced myself to watch "How I met Your Mother" the other night...In a 22 and 1/2 minute program, a drink was raised to one of the main characters' lips at least twenty times, and fully forty percent of the screen time was shot in their favorite bar.)


I think the move by studios to attempt to eliminate smoking by the heroes in their youth-oriented films is a similar concern.(Although I cynically wonder if it is their gambit to up the tobacco co's bids.)


I think it would be good that they make some effort not to glamorize smoking the way movies and tv did in the forties and fifties.

Your link seemed to indicate that these studios are attempting to make a distinction between the outright banning of smoking images and merely trying to be careful not to glamorize/advertise cigarrettes to young people.

The smoking scenes in the Simpson's movie were not removed, and I know that Patty and Selma sum up Groening's picture of smoking...Cough-y and seedy.


My references to the subtextual ads by gambling/alcohol/nra in television are related, as this is exactly the path tobacco went earlier in the entertainment business.
Pushing/paying studios to show shiny, enviable characters enjoying these vices.

Tobacco was pretty much busted on it when the states sued them for medical costs.

I think the people should be educated about what's going on behind the scenes, in the writing rooms and studio/network boardrooms.
Otherwise, it will get to a point where it goes to litigation(profiting only big law firms) or legislation.(Scarily threatening amendment 1)

[rkzenrage]

THEY WERE DRINKING IN A BAR!!!???