Smoking in film.

[Pirate]

Let’s start with a few things from the net:

1. Video about celebs who smoke on and off screen: http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/scp_v3/...&ch=49799&src=

2. A site dedicated to stopping smoking in films: http://smokefreemovies.ucsf.edu/news/index.html

Ok, so what are your feelings on this? Do you think that characters smoking in films influence people smoking in real life? Do you think smoking is important for some characters, but gratuitous for others? What are the merits of characters smoking?

We’ve seen a few folks here already express anger and concern over this in some of the other threads (including the Nudity one) and It should serve for some good discussion…or shouting matches.

-PH

P.S. I apologize for this thread, but you know it had to be done.

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by piratehunter

P.S. I apologize for this thread, but you know it had to be done.

If it had to be done, you wouldn't have apologized.

I don't care about smoking in film at all.

Peace...

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

If it had to be done, you wouldn't have apologized.

I don't care about smoking in film at all.

Peace...

Sure ya do! C'mon, lets push this one to 400!

-PH

[firestorm]

I don't care one way or the other. I seriously don't believe that smoking in films or TV have influenced whether I smoke or not. My peers had a greater influence by far. Most of my friends didn't smoke at all until college (or approaching college), but most of them did (or still do) smoke at parties and such. I never once thought, "Gee, John McClane is a badass... it must be the smoking!"

I do think it is good that, as in real life, smoking in movies has become far less (or not at all) glamorous and employeed in fewer and fewer characters. But, in most cases (all that currently come to mind anyway), smoking fits the characters for which it has been used in recent years, where it is so "natural" that you practically don't acknowledge it consciously any more than you would a smoker at a bar. For some reason, Porter (Mel Gibson) in "Payback" stands out in my mind, and can't imagine him any other way.

I guess because it doesn't bother me, I haven't actively noted smoking, and cannot think of anything where it was overused or unfitting. Anybody have any possible examples? (I don't doubt that they're out there)

[SeanL]

I think at one time smoking in films influenced people to smoke, or at least made smoking seem to be the "hip" thing to do. These days, people are keenly aware of the health hazards of smoking, so most (emphasis on most) people are not going to be influenced by what they see on TV or the big screen.

Personally, I've lived this long without being influenced by what I see on the screen, I think I can live the rest of my life without succumbing.

[Pirate]

I’m with the rest of you in thinking that smoking in film, for the most part, does not influence others. And I agree that peers have much influence in that department.

With that said, I do think that smoking can be very useful in film. For example, there’s no way Constantine would have worked if he hadn’t smoked. I also think that films like Domino (yup I’m using it again) is also a good example. Domino is a self destructive character and it makes sense to me that she would chain smoke.

Smoking can also be gratuitous. I think smoking is used a lot of times as a writing crutch to show characters as being stressed. I’ve seen films where people are going though a rough time and they say lines like “I don’t smoke, but it time to start.” The same can be said for alcohol.

-PH

[reapersaurus]

Hey -I'll do my part to get a thread movin'

I think you guys are dangerously delusional in saying "Smoking on film/TV doesn't affect youngsters."

So - youACTUALLY believe that kids aren't affected by what the see in popular culture, and what is invariably made out to be "cool"?

Man, you guys must seriously forget the influence of movies on kids.
It is simply a FACT (I'm sure there's many many many studies which bear this out) that kids are influenced by mainstream media.

I guess you all think that the billions of dollars in advertising are completely uneffective, too, right?

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by reapersaurus

I think you guys are dangerously delusional in saying "Smoking on film/TV doesn't affect youngsters."

I think it can, but I think parents and friends are more influential when it comes to smoking.

Originally Posted by reapersaurus

So - youACTUALLY believe that kids aren't affected by what the see in popular culture, and what is invariably made out to be "cool"?

Sure they are, but we’re talking about cigarettes here. Most people that I know who started smoking did so because of friends and their environment. Not those Kool ads in magazines or films.

Originally Posted by reapersaurus

Man, you guys must seriously forget the influence of movies on kids.
It is simply a FACT (I'm sure there's many many many studies which bear this out) that kids are influenced by mainstream media.

Again, you’re right that kids are affected by the media, but I’m not sure how much of that is smoking in films.

-PH

[firestorm]

Originally Posted by reapersaurus

Hey -I'll do my part to get a thread movin'

:P

Naturally, there is going to be some influence, but I only said it had no (or maybe minimal) impact on me in regards to smoking. But, perhaps that is because my father and most of his friend smoke(d), taking an edge off the curiousity. There was also far more smoking in films during my childhood. I can think of only one example of smoking tied to a movie, and it was a friend's brother who picked up a pipe because of LOTR, but that was merely a tangent off of current habits.

Now, if Harry Potter smoked, that would be one thing, but what smoking I've seen in movies of the last decade or so has been greatly minimized and I wouldn't immediately define it as cool. My real point is, even if a film sparks curiousity or implants a cool image, that influence is weak in comparison to the influence of friends and family. I doubt that even Joe Camel was as influential as peers, as most people don't like being the odd one out. And, of course, it has already been pointed out that people today, especially youths, are far more educated on the subject than just 10-15 years ago.

I simply don't see the smoking in films alone pushing someone past that knowledge of the bad effects, the taste, the high costs, and the stigma associated with it, into a habitual tobacco user. Film may play a part, but a rather small (dare I say negligible?) part.

One area where my thoughts on this differs is if you are or ever were a smoker. Imagine the cravings that may be triggered.

[Enron]

I really dislike smoke (in real life) and in one instance smoking in a film put me off. I used to really have the hots for Catherine Zeta-Jones. After seeing Chicago, in which she seemed to suck those things down in every scene, I got turned off to her. To boot, I found out later she was pregnant while filming that movie! What a moron.

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by reapersaurus

So - youACTUALLY believe that kids aren't affected by what the see in popular culture, and what is invariably made out to be "cool"?

NO, they are saying they don't think seeing people smoking on TV influences kids today, in the way you're implying. That's different from the question you're asking here.

Peace...

[mighty mint]

Originally Posted by piratehunter

We’ve seen a few folks here already express anger and concern over this in some of the other threads (including the Nudity one) and It should serve for some good discussion…or shouting matches.

-PH

SHOUTING MATCHES! I'LL GIVE YOU SHOUTING MATCHES!!!

Just joshin' - there are only three things that come to my mind when I see actors smoking on film: 1) Do the smoke in real life, 2) Are they inhaling and 3) i wonder how many actors have died from a form of cancer due to smoking on film.

They have come up with fake candy glass for glass smashing scenes, I wonder if they have come up with fake cigarettes for smoking scenes...

[Taxi]

They could easily add CGI smoke to a "faked" cigarette. Most scenes don't last long enough for anybody to notice that the cigarette isn't getting shorter as it burns down.

[reapersaurus]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

NO, they are saying they don't think seeing people smoking on TV influences kids today, in the way you're implying. That's different from the question you're asking here.

Actually, unless I'm mis-reading things, the main point(s) are that kids aren't as influenced by media sources as much as they are their peers..... to which I reply...........

duh. of course.

If you are saying that kids aren't influenced by media smoking images/film TODAY, than I would simply say you are wrong, and point to the millions of dollars spent on advertising as proof.

[Astrakan]

Originally Posted by mighty mint

They have come up with fake candy glass for glass smashing scenes, I wonder if they have come up with fake cigarettes for smoking scenes...

I'm guessing no. When they talked with David Strathairn during the red carpet Oscar countdown show he said he smoked pipe tobacco rolled into cigarettes during Good Night, and Good Luck. He smoked in a huge percentage of his scenes in that movie (I'd say 80%+) and I would think that if there were such a thing as fake cigarettes they would've had those for him.

He said they use pipe tobacco because it burns slower and the smoke itself looks better on film.

KM

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by reapersaurus

Actually, unless I'm mis-reading things, the main point(s) are that kids aren't as influenced by media sources as much as they are their peers.....

I don't know if you're misreading anything since I've skimmed the previous posts and haven't read them thoroughly.

If you are saying that kids aren't influenced by media smoking images/film TODAY, than I would simply say you are wrong, and point to the millions of dollars spent on advertising as proof.

Two points:

1. I'm not making that statement in an "absolute" sense, as you're reflecting in your comment. It's not a case of kids being influenced or not, it's a matter of the degree of influence meaning media is a factor. The question is how much of a factor.
2. I haven't given my personal views on this, since I don't care about smoking in film.
3. Even though media covers TV, movies, music, and some aspects of the Internet, I think we're talking about film in this thread, not "the media" as a whole. Your point about advertising illustrates a fine, but important line which does exist. I would agree an advertisement featuring smoking could have an impact on someone's desire to smoke, but that's much different than seeing Bruce Willis light one up in Die Hard. In both cases we're talking about "media" but in very different ways. To NOT differentiate between the different forms of media and how they contribute or not to one's desire to smoke is a mistake, IMO.

Ok, so I can't count today... you can thank Windows 98 for that.

Peace...

[reapersaurus]

Why are YOU putting such restrictions on the discussion?
I think it's a bit incomplete to solely talk about cigarette use in film, when the real impact of such imagery is also contributed by TV, and ads.

It would be like talking about the effect of a sex-obsessed soiety, and ONLY talking about film. Ignoring the effect of radio, TV, internet, and print on the populace would be kinda "viewing a thread with blinders on".

[firestorm]

Originally Posted by reapersaurus

Why are YOU putting such restrictions on the discussion?
I think it's a bit incomplete to solely talk about cigarette use in film, when the real impact of such imagery is also contributed by TV, and ads.

Thread topic: "Smoking in film"

For one, ads have a very specific purpose, and although a successful ad should be entertaining or catchy, among other things, that purpose doesn't change... they are meant to be influencial. TV is extremely similar to film in this area, but likely more influencial IMO. Multiple epsides and seasons, allow additional time for viewers to develope stronger emotional ties to characters. Given the differenecs, I would feel it more appropriate to use them in comparison to film.

[MooglePorn]

You guys do realize we're talking about titties in the other thread, right? What are you all doing here?

Seriously, I don't care if they smoke or not... if you start smoking because Keanu Reeves does, you're an idiot, and I don't care. What I hate is when too much focus is put on the smoking without reason... LOOK HOW COOL THEY LOOK. Takes me right out of the movie and into "what a piece of shit mode."

There are exceptions to this when the story makes sense for it... Constantine, The X-Files, etc.

[reapersaurus]

Originally Posted by firestorm

Thread topic: "Smoking in film"

Yes. And my point is that a thread that only focuses on Film use of cigarettes is flawed, purposely blinding itself.

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by reapersaurus

Yes. And my point is that a thread that only focuses on Film use of cigarettes is flawed, purposely blinding itself.

How is the thread flawed? We are talking about smoking in a specific medium. If it were a general conversation about smoking and the media, it would be in Test and Off Topic and be called Smoking and The Media.


-PH

[mighty mint]

Originally Posted by MooglePorn

You guys do realize we're talking about titties in the other thread, right? What are you all doing here?

Okay, Moogle, STOP IT! You are killing me man!

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by reapersaurus

Why are YOU putting such restrictions on the discussion?
I think it's a bit incomplete to solely talk about cigarette use in film, when the real impact of such imagery is also contributed by TV, and ads.

I'm not putting any restrictions on anything. Why do you think I'm doing so?

I'm simply pointing out the scope of this thread isn't as broad as your point requires, that's all. If we're going to broaden the discussion to be more of a media influence on folks, then we need to move this thread out of film discussion and into O/T.

It would be like talking about the effect of a sex-obsessed soiety, and ONLY talking about film. Ignoring the effect of radio, TV, internet, and print on the populace would be kinda "viewing a thread with blinders on".

Yep, I agree but the broader scope of discussion you seek, which I think would be great discussion, needs to take place in a broader scope thread. A broader scope thread no longer focuses on film, which is the purpose of the Film Discussion forum.

The discussion we had about nudity in film touched upon non-film issues (pics on the Internet) but the focus remained on film and actors.

Talking about how smoking ads influence kids has nothing to do with film unless you want to limit the scope of that discussion to smoking ads IN movies.

I'm not restricting anything, meaning you can't discuss things here, but I am trying to make sure we're all on the same page and not mixing what I consider to be different issues. Now, in the broader scope thread I mention above, we could delve into the differences between influential behavior discussed or portrayed in film, on TV, in music, on the Internet, or whatever and see if we can figure out what really is detrimental and what isn't, what really is influential and what isn't, and so on.

Peace...

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by MooglePorn

You guys do realize we're talking about titties in the other thread, right? What are you all doing here?

Yep, but we were talking about tits on film and the merits of them on that medium.

Peace...

[raptors661]

i really dont care if someone lights up a cig on the screen. for some people its one of their trademarks. look at mel gibson in lethal weapon

[papibear]

As a former smoker, I won't deny that smoking on film has SOME degree of influence on viewer