May contain adult scenes....
Looks like Liverpool City Council may ban under 18's from seeing films showing smoking, So if you live there you may have to travel to see any (3D??) re-releases of LotR, or the Hobbit movies if they include the old pipeweed....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-smoking.html |
How about: "Kids can't watch sci fi movies, because some of them might actually be tempted to make a rocket in their backyard for the purposes of blasting off to hang out with Vulcans."
I'm just glad that the Liverpool council is looking out for everyone's well-being, because everyone knows that young adults simply mindlessly replicate whatever it is they see on a large enough screen. |
Utterly ridiculous. There are perfectly valid reasons to avoid PJ's movies without resorting to rubbish like this. ;)
|
Quote:
Of course, Ian McKellan may be behind this move. ;) Remember, he wanted Gandalf to be chewing some sort of candy because he'd given up smoking. |
I'm surprised they included any smoking in the films in the first place to be fair.
|
Quote:
I don't think it's that big deal, cause it's a pipe, it isn't like the hobbits are there with a modern day cigarette or a joint or something. I have a hard time picturing teenagers going to get themselves a pipe because Gandalf did it. ;) Not really that cool... |
Hmm,
pipe-smoking obviously dangerous to depict on film, but beheadings and mutilation are apparently fine. :rolleyes: The Scouser councillors would do better spending their time down in Toxteth stopping kids illegally buying fags and drugs and booze I reckon. |
Boy am I ever relieved that this thread is merely about smoking...
:rolleyes: Here's an idea. How about parents, who actually know their kids' temperaments and tastes, decide what's okay for their individual children to watch and talk over any issues that arise from that with said kids? I know, asking mom and dad to take an active role in the upbringing of their own offspring is kind of a stretch...but really, now, surely the human race is ready for this step. :rolleyes: Kids/teens/young adults are smarter and stronger than their parents' generations give them credit for being. Sheltering isn't necessary. Trust, understanding, and open channels of conversation are. But what do I know? I'm just some college kid. I think that the merits of TH and LOTR far outweigh the smoking nonsense. There are lessons there about friendship, bravery, respect, pity, perseverance, hope, the potential of everyone, no matter how small/ordinary, etc. that are far more beneficial than a few scenes of Gandalf and some Hobbits and Dwarves smoking are harmful. |
Quote:
And anyway; if it is okay that the females are just butterflies on the wall while men are the action heroes, why wouldn't smoking a pipeful be as fine as well? Those are both remnants of the old culture anyway... So why are we discussing this? :rolleyes: PS: okay, I see davem's point in making a ridicule of that Liverpool -decision... but even more so: what's the problem with our time? Smoking a pipe is bad and should not be shown while in the world bad things actually happen... :(:mad: |
Quote:
I don't see Tolkien as having to contrive some kind of "Tomb Raider" character just to appeal to future generations who think an Angelina Jolie really could slay men by the dozens. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Seriously Violence is Ok but Smoking is bannable? |
Quote:
But yes, smoking is a good opponent as well. :rolleyes: |
Of course... the creation of life is dirty... the destruction of it is OK...
Lillylivers in Liverpool |
Its clearly a much bigger issue than may at first appear, & I think GK Chesterton (a great influence on Tolkien) has a good point:
Quote:
|
"A woman is only a woman, but a good cigar is a smoke." Rudyard Kipling
Ah, puritanical revisionism, the innate need for certain folk to impress their missionary zeal on the public! Amusingly, they do not mention prohibiting teens from watching beheadings with swords or gun-toting maniacs spraying crowds with bullets. Even more interstingly, I did not notice a cultural phenomenon such as masses of teens smoking tobacco in pipes after the release of the LotR movies. Perhaps it is because the tobacco companies did not market clay pipes, churchwardens, calabashes or Meerschaums to the teen demographic. They obviously missed out on a product tie-in bonanza. I still have a churchwarden with a twelve-inch stem I bought in my teens (during the era when pipes were used to smoke anything but tobacco in). I haven't used it for decades, but it looks good on the mantle. Ummm...what were we talking about again? |
Quote:
Violence is much easier to explain to children and for them to understand, especially when one views it in terms of self-defense. That's one of the reasons we take children to martial arts class, isn't it? I have four children, and I tell them all of the time that "It's wrong to start a fight, but you're nobody's punching bag, either." Sex, however, should have more meaning and depth to it- meaning and depth that children simply can not comprehend until they mature. |
So it's an idea being considered. Who would have thought that Daily Mail readers need their daily fix of teeth-gnashing, :p
Children are highly restricted in most aspects of life anyway; what matter if they're denied a couple of extra films? They'll still have many things to complain about. |
There's anoher article about the controversy here - which adds nothing new but is worth linking to because of the author's name http://www.cypnow.co.uk/news/ByDisci...smoking-films/
|
Quote:
I personally don't think that sex is more inherently meaningful, though it can certainly be as dangerous as anything violent (due to STD's, etc.). My kid brother is 13, I think he's old enough to see, say, some scene in "Revolutionary Road" without it being damaging or horrifying or confusing, and yet there are issues with that. On the other hand, horrific scenes of violence in "Saving Private Ryan" were somehow deemed a-OK, even though he, like me, practically went into a stupor when he watched Adam Goldberg's character get stabbed to death the first time he saw it. I guess it also depends on the scene, for me. Like, I get disturbed when I think about him watching something sadistic or creepy, much less so if he sees Leonardo Dicaprio and Kate Winslet totally clothed and on the kitchen counter. |
Quote:
Anyway, I have yet another reason to ban the viewing of Peter Jackson's LotR (besides the obvious murder of Gandalf's character in RotK...;)). This would extend to the books as well, but who reads anymore? But what about mushrooms? Tolkien clearly does not warn readers that most mushrooms found in the wild, regardless of what they are served with, if eaten are deadly. :rolleyes: How irresponsible of Jackson and Tolkien. Then, regarding the films, besides 'smoke' there are fireworks. Do you know how many children lose fingers or experience serious burns due to these devices which Jackson treats as nothing more than plot devices (actually, I don't know, and was hoping someone could do the leg work on that)? Anyway, seriously, it's my job as my children's parent to keep them safe. If I screw that up, it's obviously going to weed my genes out of the pool. My kids know that smoking is bad, and yet they've watched all three movies. My kids know that their grandfather died due to too much smoke. No Wizard or Hobbit is going to change their minds on that one. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
I am surprised that what I am about to say has yet to be mentioned yet. Weather this happens or not the kids will still see people smoking. These kids could have parents who smoke or they could just see someone on the street who is smoking. Preventing them from seeing it in movies is not preventing them from seeing it at all.
|
Quote:
Even at 18, those who know what love really is are so few as to be practically negligible. And we see what widespread sex without love (or at least real commitment) does for society- both now and in times past. In any event, I still say that violence and sex are apples and oranges. |
Quote:
Can't help thinking about the episode in Lorien between Sam & Galdriel: "I wish you'd take his Ring. You'd put things to rights... You'd make some folk pay for their dirty work." "I would," Galadriel tells Sam. "That is how it would begin. But it would not stop with that, alas!" |
Quote:
I was amazed at how many very young children were taken to see the LOTR films in the cinema. Personally I though it was irresponsible but I wasn't going to be the one coping with the nightmares;). Yes care should be taken about what children are exposed to especially in films/ on tv - books are to an extent "safer" because a child is less likely to have the capacity to read something that is much too old for it. The decision on what should not be based on parental prudishness - kids who live in the country are going to work it out soon enough - even if you throw the TV away. Eventually they will work out that those bullocks are not playing piggy back. Noone is going to suggest swapping the telly tubbies for Antichrist but it seems bizarre to me that very mild sex scenes or nudity even in a non sexual context is seen as more damaging than violence. A lot of violence and sex in films is gratuitous and forgets that what is suggested is often more scary or erotic than that which is shown but if they are "apples and oranges" then the violence is worse. If you take a film such as Peter Weir's Witness where scenes of sex and violence are used in a way that is essential to the plot, is it really the tender. beautifully and discreetly shot love scenes that are going to be hard to explain and potentially damaging, or the murder and shoot out? |
Quote:
On the other hand, as someone who's also experienced very serious violence, I think that it was way more damaging than any casual fling. That's why I find violence in movies - while stylistically gorgeous at times - a way more complicated issue than sex, for a kid in particular. Not that I think they mindlessly replicate that stuff either. I think that something like smoking, on the other hand, while harmful to the body, is much more of a conscious issue, you know? It's not nearly as primal as any of this other stuff (am not saying that sex and violence are totally primal, of course). That's why I don't fret if my brother watches a scene with smoking. I fret way more when it's one of his friends smoking on the balcony and encouraging him to join in. |
Mith and Lush,
I haven't been comparing the damage of sex and the damage of violence with each other. That is your own construct. My original intent was to point out that violence is easier to explain to the young than sex. I've been involved in occupations based on force and violence for a long part of my life, and I also find that, outside of purely malevolent circles, violence can be somewhat self-policing because, on a personal level, it hurts and it's scary. Bedding someone is much easier because it involves physical pleasure. In any event, while violence is prevalent in the media, sex is positively ubiquitous. One doesn't have to focus on love scenes in films, tasteful or not, with things like MTV being broadcasted 24/7. I'm not sure why this is hard to understand. |
Mm. Bedding. Have always liked that expression. ;)
Quote:
|
Quote:
Whereas Johnny Depp might get kids into smoking fags, Gandalf probably won't, but bureaucratic regulations can't distinguish between such subtleties. Still, we live in democratic societies, and if the voting public thinks that these regulations are a threat to their personal freedom rather than a good way of saving lives they would not vote for the political party who wants to implement them. Here we can talk about morality. Watching violence for entertainment in movies is okay but smoking (or sex) is not. But the moral judgement comes from the voting public I believe, and not from the politicians (although they can try to influence the former). The question is: do you want to make your own decisions, or do you prefer to relinquish this responsibility to the state/city council? Many people these days seem to prefer the latter and that is why more and more details in ours lives are being monitored, regulated and controlled. |
Quote:
From my own experience it seems teenagers mostly pick up the habit because their friends do it, and the friends usually had parents who smoked. It doesn't appear to me watching a movie character smoke during the film has much of an influence. It never did for me, at any rate, and the war on smoking was not even in full force when I was a child. I remember buying candy cigarettes from the store. I had a friend or two that smoked cigarettes in my teenage years, but most of my exposure to it was at home. I had a grandfather who smoked cigarettes, and my father has been a pipe smoker as long as I can remember. Had I chosen to pick up the habit, I believe pipe smoking is what it would have been. My wife was a smoker when we met, though she later quit. She says her associates were the most influential factor in her starting. |
Quote:
Quote:
But if that justifies censorship is an altogether different question. I certainly don't think so. If we can't make our own life decisions, life's quite pointless. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Driving can be bad for you too ... lots of people die on the roads every year - and children aren't allowed to drive anyway, so clearly (using the same logic) all movies showing people driving should be banned to stop children from being influenced to drive. The fact that one standard is applied to the depiction of smoking ... and a different standard applied to the depiction of other harmful activities. This just shows that this is a "moral" issue as far as the do-gooders are considered. They clearly think that smoking is not only potentially life-shortening but that it is an "evil" that should be stamped out. However, a double standard applies. Smoking will never be banned as long as the government can reap enormous taxes from the sale of tobacco. Yes, the same government that tells us how perfectly dreadful smoking is. If it's really that bad (and I'm not saying that it isn't) - then just ban it. All of the moral handwringing about a legal activity is just .... repellent. Screwtape would be proud. |
I've no time for a lengthy reply now but firstly, I think you misunderstood me slightly. I might have erred with the terminology as well. Unless I'm mistaken, all economic theory is based on the supposition that all players act in what they deem as their own best interest. What I mean by economic terms as opposed to moralistic terms, is therefore not only the money-factor but also that the politicians who decide on smoking policies make a more or less rational assessment based on which action they think serves their party, and more importantly themselves, best.
Oh man, I have to run, will explain later... |
Caution: Rambling rant in progress
I can understand people's anger, for and against, tobacco use. I personally don't use, and will avoid another's smoke as much as possible, but, that said, couldn't care less if people smoke. It's their issue, not mine. Most smokers are respectful of my air space. My only gripe is the disposal of the cigarette butts, which, for some reason, unlike any other piece of trash/rubbish, can, and seemingly MUST! be thrown on the ground/in the gutter. :mad:
Please be a little more responsible...You smokers do realize that your DNA is easily recovered from the spent cigarette, don't you? Welcome to your country's DNA database. Anyway, I'm not sure why this product is singled out so in movies, especially in a movie trilogy like LotR, where it's all fantasy. Not sure if my kids, when they watched Bilbo and Gandalf puffing away, understood that pipeweed exists in their world as well as in Middle Earth. The characters in ME have and use weapons, drink ale and wine, overeat, suggest cannibalism, murder (even children), pillage, don't practice oral hygiene, etc - a multitude of sins, poor choices, unhealthy habits and bad behaviour. And some smoke! What I find annoying is, like many have said, why, if the product is so bad for health, it remains legal. Actually, the real question is how anyone can say with a straight face why it is so bad and yet so legal. What a deal! Heavily tax a physically addictive substance, pretend to ban the advertising of it (thereby making it more exclusive), subsidize its production, and cry over its cost to the health system. When you're having this much fun, you know that government is involved...:rolleyes: Why not allow people to make their own choices, and also be responsible for their own actions? A life insurance company, knowing that tobacco users have better odds of 'cashing in,' increase premiums for users. If you want to smoke - fine - but it may cost you more, but that's your thing. An aside: The other night we're driving home on a larger four lane highway. We're driving with traffic, and so traveling at about 50 mph (80 kph). It's getting darker. There's a motorcyclist in front of me, and the guy isn't wearing a helmet, but that's his choice. Anyway, he slowed a bit, and pulled somewhat to the side of his lane, yet maintained speed and continued along. Me, wanting to get away from this organ donor in training, passed him on his left. When we came level with him, his odd behaviour was now explained. He was using his left hand to text on his cell phone! :eek: Gandalf and Bilbo smoked, but they also showed wisdom. If only we could ban stupidity... |
Quote:
Quote:
In some cases it must be noted that smokers do not always have a place to dispose of their rubbish - they are often expected to smoke outside in a designated area that has no rubbish disposal because some bureaucrat has decided that "smokers bins" would be unsightly, undesirable or immoral. The excuse used would be such bins would "encourage smoking". Naturally, not providing bins further stigmatises smokers and their "dirty habit". As I said ... I don't smoke ... but I don't like busy-bodies either. I see no problem in designating that most places be "smoke-free" but on the other hand I don't understand why no places can be "smoke-friendly", as seems to be the trend in most countries. |
Quote:
My one point of evidence is my neighbor who throws his cigarette butts in his own yard. I've seen him with other non-edible consumables, but not *one* of these other items has ever hit the grass. Every evening, though, there's one more butt on the lawn. He lives upwind, and it smolders...:rolleyes: Quote:
Quote:
"See those people standing over there by the doorway. It's forty below (an easy temp for both ºF and ºC fans), and yet they're out there, puffing away. That's addiction." Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
That said, I've known a lot of smokers in my life (in my mother's family, it was apparently a required practice of the family religion, drinking. I was considered a freak for wanting to do neither). I don't really care if people want to smoke, but I do want them to keep their smoke to themselves, which they can't do. Therein lies the rub. My friends who smoked were very polite about it, long before it was fashionable (or required). But I did notice one thing among them: most of the people who were exclusively pipe smokers could take it or leave it. They smoked only occasionally, and when some needed to quit because of their health, they had no trouble doing so. Not so for cigarette smokers. Now, maybe I just happen to know a remarkable bunch of people, but I've long wondered if there's a manufacturing difference between the two. Wouldn't surprise me. I disliked smoking even before I read LotR, but it had no influence on my liking of the book or the characters (Gandalf has always been my favorite). The book was not only written during a time when smoking was socially acceptable, it was a fantasy set in another time and place. It certainly did not influence my attitudes about smoking, any more than it made me believe I could go out and learn magic spells or develop hairy feet. I think kids of today are as capable of separating fantasy from reality, if adults will let them. Screenwriters can downplay a thing without totally eliminating it, if it is necessary to the plot or character. If it isn't, it can simply be left out, but it shouldn't be replaced by something silly, like candy (which is just as big a no-no in today's world). |
Well, as someone who has smoked pipe, cigarettes & cigars in the past (stopping when my little boy made his appearance) I have to say the worst of them were the ciggies & the nicest the pipe. I have never driven a car, preferring either bus, train or 'Shank's pony'. Hence, I like to think I can take the role of disinterested party on this subject. Other people's smoke is bad, & they should keep it to themselves. But they should also keep their music (particularly the horrid little 'tss- tss' of their Ipods), their BO, & their exhaust fumes (which are much more dangerous than second hand tobacco smoke - would you prefer to be locked in a sealed room with a running car or with a smoker puffing away?). Point is, there are lots of things people do which impinge on others, & which are to some degree unpleasant, but we are human beings, flawed, fallen & mostly bloody annoying even (or ironically, especially) when we're trying our best not to be. Smoking, it seems to me, is kept legal by the government 'cos they make lots 'n' lots of money out of it, & gives non-smokers a group they can look down on, & complain about.
As to the 'addicts' standing outside in the rain & snow puffing away, I'm fairly sure that if you restricted TV watching, candy eating or complaining about smoking to the sidewalk you'd see a large-ish number of non-smokers gathered in the same kind of groups, in the same kind of weather conditions indulging their own particular 'vice'. Smoking is one of many dirty, unhealthy & annoying habits human beings indulge in & the real puzzle for me is why its become seen as a 'moral' issue. I honestly don't see how anyone who drives a car regularly can complain about smokers producing smells, carcinogenic fumes, or being a danger to themselves & others - & if we're talking about damage to the environment I don't think the smokers are the ones posing the risk. That said, of course, there are those who indulge in both pastimes so I'm sure my argument collapses in some way right there. I note that Tolkien gave up his car but kept his pipe, & personally I think he was right. Nope, this is a moral crusade against a smelly habit, which is no worse than many other human follies & foibles, & merely confirms to me only that the human race has lost its wits as well as its moral compass. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:08 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.