Posts by giovanni tiso
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Also, Hilary Clinton would have been up for thirty-three minutes already at that point.
-
More and more I want advisories to warn me that a programme is very stupid, or that a film is excessively formulaic, or that Nastassja Kinski ca. 1988 is not in it so really what's the point? But it just doesn't happen.
-
Needn't be limited to sex & drugs, either. I'd rather have known, for example, that a recent otherwise incredibly excellent movie contained a gruesome scene involving a corpse. Similarly, if I was trying to give up smoking, I might want to avoid a super-smoky movie.
I'm constantly outraged that shock ads for road safety, ACC etc. don't come with a warning, and a loud one at that. If it wasn't that we already don't show the children the six o'clock news because it's too asinine, we'd have to do it on account of the genuinely upsetting advertising.
-
Let's name our nannyism. I'd ban advertising of all things to children under the age of, say, 12, and ban advertising of things that cause harm to people other than the direct consumer - so alcohol and yes, cigarettes as well on account of the second-hand smoke thing. Let's have people in films and tv shows indulge in whatever vice their characters require, so long as it doesn't come with brand placement.
-
That's just because I haven't done your area yet. I'm only one man, you know.
-
Okay fair point. And how many times do you remember seeing kids in the playground imitating the Karate Kid crane pose? Lots. So I'll have to think about that one a bit more.
I would personally beg you not to. I don't want to see violence moved to a late time slot next - it would seriously harm my Wile E. Coyote watching sessions with the kiddies.
You're misunderstanding the meaning of "normalise", which is to bring towards the mean, or average. Most people don't smoke, so by that definition, smoking is not normal.
And most people don't smoke in films. So really in order to be realistic, shouldn't we insist that enough people are shown smoking in films to reflect reality? And if not, why not exactly?
Poor argument. Death from motor vehicles results from using them in a way that was not intended, or from unskilled use. Death from tobacco use results from using it exactly as intended.
Another way of looking at it is that accidents occur simply by cars being on the road. And many people who die because of smoking related causes are very heavy users. Also, cars carry significant health costs beside the numbers of deaths in accidents - pollution is a major killer and cars are a major cause of pollution.
-
So with (unhealthy) drinking and violence in film, you get to see the adverse consequences. With smoking (always unhealthy), you don't.
Yes, the always terrible consequences of violence in film. Like, say, Karate Kid, or The Matrix, or Kung Fu Panda, powerful indictments against brutality that they are. Or Charles Bronson's films, etc.
- all on-screen tobacco use normalises smoking;
What does that even mean? Is smoking abnormal? Are my parents abnormal persons? I don't think so. Smoking is normal. A minor vice with a not insignificant overall cost to society and occasionally fatal consequences for the individual, yes. But abnormal?
You know what else kills a lot of people? Driving cars. Should we ban those from films?
Besides, who says that fictions have to always depict what is normal, be true to life? Do we ask that the laws of physics always apply in films? And why should the laws of medicine?
I also think if you go down that road it's pretty hard to stop. Let's say you ban vice for films, should you then enforce virtues? Why not demand that every male and female lead in films be shown to be a keen jogger?
-
Not to mention Phlegm, My Lovely
-
I'd be really happy with none of course. But that is an unreasonable attitude to have. But if there are actors who feel that they have to oblige the director/writer/producer/bank roller then so be it. I would hate to think they would not get paid if they did not light up though.
Just so we're on the same page: you're still okay with people shooting each other and beating the shit out of each other in films, yes? Getting drunk? Being comically blotto?
Smoking is one thing that people do. Why it should be banned from films just because some other people may see it as an advertisement for smoking is frankly beyond me.
On the possibly amusing anecdote front, I remember an interview with
Nino Manfredi in which he spoke of this scene they were shooting outdoors in what was supposed to be summer in the film, but it was winter and the actors' breath came out in puffs of smoke, so they covered for that by making them smoke cigarettes but in order to work it had to be frantic smoking.See smoking has its uses.
-
I reckon the bars have increased their bottom line immensely. Just from the cleaning bill. The (lack of) repainting too must have saved a small fortune.
My dry cleaning bill dropped through the floor and the P/WAF (Partner/Wifey Acceptance Factor) increased immensely.
Those are all reasonable points. My major concern is that quitting smoking may lead to running - is that a price that we are prepared to pay, as a society?