“Antismoking PSAs to light up DVDs” But The Whole Loveless Sex and Nuancing Of Terrorism Thing Will Continue
Posted by Dirty Harry on Friday, July 11th, 2008
The same industry that promotes hedonism like no other is getting all PSA-ey over cigarette smoking:
Five major studios will begin including antismoking public service announcements in youth-rated DVDs of films that include tobacco use.
Paramount, Sony, Universal, Warner Bros. and Disney will place public service announcements on DVDs of new releases that are rated G, PG and PG-13[.]
An industry that produced a dozen-plus movies to promote a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq that would result in the mass-slaughter of millions … but smoking hurts people.
An industry that hyper-sexualizes underage girls, promoting STDs and the sure-fire road to poverty through single-motherhood … but stay away from those evil smokes.
An industry that loves their stoner movies … but tobacco’s a problem.
An industry whose new cause celebre is sympathetic child molesters … but put out that cigarette.
An industry that romanticizes monstrosities like Che, heroin chic, Communism, the Black Panthers, Castro, Chavez, and Mao … but studies show secondhand smoke might be bad for your health.
How about doing the public a real service with a PSA before every film that warns:
WHAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO WATCH WAS MOST LIKELY CREATED BY MORAL ILLITERATES.
Think about the children.
Filed in General |
Carlitoson 11 Jul 2008 at 9:37 am 1LOL! Brilliant.
Stephanieon 11 Jul 2008 at 9:46 am 2Thats awesome….
Hows about this Anti Smoking PSA is brought to you by Der Fuhrer…..Even Eva doesn’t smoke around him……
HALT VIT DER MARLBOROS! HALT! OR I KILL YOU! SIEG HEIL!
Audietooon 11 Jul 2008 at 9:49 am 3How do you spell HYPOCRITE in Hollyweirdese.
JimmyCon 11 Jul 2008 at 9:55 am 4No kidding- all of the ugly things that Hollywood glorifies on screen, yet the thing they are crusading against is cigarettes.
Where’s their moral equivalency when you need it?
JimmyCon 11 Jul 2008 at 9:56 am 5“How do you spell HYPOCRITE in Hollyweirdese.”
A-L-G-O-R-E.
Jeremiahon 11 Jul 2008 at 10:03 am 6Back when the Simpsons was funny, there was a great episode where Patty and Selma were smoking on the job at the DMV. The manager comes out, and Homer insists the cigarettes were his in order to bail out his sisters-in-law. He takes a long drag from both cigarettes at the same time, and exclaims “That’s Flavor Country!” The manager apologizes to the sisters, then slaps Homer, saying, “And you, sir! You’re worse than Hitler!”
Once again, the Simpsons were ahead of the curve…
Carolynon 11 Jul 2008 at 10:04 am 7Hypocrites is right. Now we finally have proof of what the “H” in Hollywood stands for.
Damn, makes me want to puff one in their stupid faces. And I don’t even smoke.
Troyon 11 Jul 2008 at 10:43 am 8It’s on my 101 Dalmations.
Oddly — there’s no warning against stealing puppies and skinning them to make coats. I guess that’s OK then? I’d love a Corgy jacket.
Acushlaon 11 Jul 2008 at 10:48 am 9Are you writing a book yet, DH? If not, why?
Keep blogging by all means, but dude — you need to be writing a book.
Tommy Von 11 Jul 2008 at 11:14 am 10You know, you’ll get no argument from me about the hypocrisy, and I am no fan of city-wide smoking bans
But there’s nothing wrong with trying to get kids to NOT START SMOKING.
It really is a dangerous addiction and kids are not too bright about making long-term decisions like that. As much I enjoyed my two pack a day habit, I wish I had never started and it took a lot of frustration to finally quit.
GMKon 11 Jul 2008 at 11:21 am 11I think “moral imbeciles” makes more sense
E Porvaznikon 11 Jul 2008 at 11:41 am 12WARNING: This wallet contains fewer depictions of purhcasing DVDs.
tranquilitason 11 Jul 2008 at 11:51 am 13Really? Kids don’t know smoking is bad?
They don’t care.
But I’m sure if it’s on a Disney dvd they’ll realize their mistake.
How come we can’t teach kids not to have sex (”they’ll do it any way) BUT they will some how pay attention to an ad telling them not to smoke?
E Porvaznikon 11 Jul 2008 at 12:00 pm 14>>How come we can’t teach kids not to have sex (”they’ll do it any way) BUT they will some how pay attention to an ad telling them not to smoke?>>
Just a guess, tranquilitas, but maybe because Rob Reiner hasn’t figured how to con a CA state tax kickback attached to the sale of condoms…yet.
Tommy Von 11 Jul 2008 at 2:17 pm 15We need to be careful to avoid the same hypocrisy.
Either we can affect our youth or we can’t.
If one thinks we can affect the youth then certainly anti-smoking ads are a good thing.
If one doesn’t think we can affect the youth, why are we upset for what Hollywood is doing to our youth?
(And the idea is not to tell them smoking is bad for them. You’re right, they don’t care. They don’t have that kind of timeline at thier age. The idea is to try to create peer pressure that smoking is “uncool”. I would love to see fewer teenage smokers so it seems worth a try.)
Rochelleon 11 Jul 2008 at 2:19 pm 16Hmm, I am smoking a cig as I read this…..
I best put in a DVD, that will make me stop!
Bobon 11 Jul 2008 at 2:40 pm 17Not that I can’t see or agree with the broader-scope hypocrisy, but the substantial difference between illicit sex and smoking is that smoking will hurt you EVERY TIME, no matter what. That’s not even up for legitimate debate - it’s a carcinogen, if you inhale it you harm yourself. Maybe not a lot, maybe not enough to matter, but it’s always bad for you 100% of the time, particularly for young people still developing.
Again, not disagreeing, but if someone WANTED to argue the point that’d be how…
a. acaciaon 11 Jul 2008 at 4:50 pm 18Lena Olin appeared on the Nov. 1989 front cover of “American Film” (AFI’s magazine, now resting in the graveyard of Once Mighty Mags). She’s in a satin nightie, looking luminous in 1930s sepia tone, and holding a ciggie. Then on the editor’s page Chris Hodenfield braces himself saying “we…are standing by to see how many outraged readers will write in to complain about Lena’s cigarette.”
If I recall the following month there were quite a few angry letters (yes, I was a loyal subscriber).
Today I imagine the Board of Directors would hoist Mr. Hodenfield’s head over the ramparts for even thinking about a cover shot like that.
I’m reading Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism” right now and he talks about the tyranny of good intentions. The lefty facists won’t bully us; they’ll “nanny” us to death. The crusade against smoking is a good example. When it becomes state-mandated, we’ll have fallen off the slippery slope.
Oh, and in case you’re wondering, YES, Lena looks totally smokin’ hot!
Jack Marinoon 12 Jul 2008 at 7:38 am 19Every film I ever will make, everyone will have a cigarette, cigar hanging out of their mouths. I will show people eating like Vikings, drinking and fondle women with low self-esteem. My films are going to be fun making them and watching them. We will show people driving with no seat belts and talking on cell phones with one hand and eating a double cheeseburger from the dollar menu. My cars will show smoke coming out of the tail pipe and the drive will throw the empty cup of coke out the window. Since kids copy everything I will make it ‘cool’ to go against everything the liberals mandate.
Tommy Von 12 Jul 2008 at 9:12 am 20I think many of you are missing the point and some are even being a little childish.
There is a gigantic difference between PSAs and laws banning an activity.
Seriously, if you are so far gone that you think kids should smoke just because liberals don’t want them to, you’re not going to be an asset to anybody.
Playing the “opposite game” with the left is not exactly the foundation of conservative thought.
Kendamaon 12 Jul 2008 at 12:25 pm 21Yes. Encouraging people to light up or litter because “the left says you shouldn’t” and for no other reason is a “reductio ad Hitlerum.”
(Reductio ad Hitlerum: Person or people considered undesirable do X, therefore X is bad. Hitler and the Nazis are the quintessential example, since nearly everybody hates Hitler.)
Yes, PSAs are not laws. It’s about social pressure — though lawmakers may be among the audience, and they may get a new bright idea.
Jack Marinoon 12 Jul 2008 at 10:22 pm 22What is this with comparing not going alone with social pressure with Hitler” I just don’t like a bunch of unelected beaucrats telling me or you what we can or cannot do. Passing all these laws under the guise of health or saving the planet from litter is reductio ad Hiterum.
Besides, the liberals have glorified sex, drugs and rock n roll baby in 40 years of films and that lifestyle hasn’t been hazardous to the well being of our country? How many times you have seen someone smoke a joint, jab a needle and of course Tony Montana pushing his face in a pile of cocaine. That is OK, its only a movie, ’say it three times”.
Light up a smoke on film we may kill a generation of kids. This is ALL INSANITY and the beaucrats do this to perpetuate their jobs year in and year out. They get their budgets increase to figure out what the public can or cannot do. They are taking our choices away like slicing a thin slice of baloney.
I smoke cigars on a regular basis and i have smoke them in films too. Its called rebellion to laws that this government was never intended to pass. They can put all the PSA in the front of my film the want. In the body of my film I will do what I want. You as a customer can stay home or make a donation to my cigar supply at the box office. That is what you can do. See we all have choices.
Beside I make films to entertain, not to be an asset for young people not to participate in some lifestyle that isn’t in vogue today. I grew up in an era where EVERYONE had a butt hanging out of their mouths and everyone all wore hats. I never smoke cigarettes, JFK killed the hat industry. Then the 60s came and ‘lets smoke some weed man”. I never took drugs in fact anyone that took drugs is a loser, can I put that in my films or is that going against what the liberals want. After I don’t want act like Hitler. This is all a gigantic waste of time to debate this nonsense.
People smoked then and they do it now, the world was full of liter then and that place is still a dump. No PSA will change it and showing people showing in a film on a street full if liter will NOT CHANGE anything.
Tommy Von 13 Jul 2008 at 9:24 am 23Jack,
Six paragraphs wasted on a strawman argument.
Not a single person advocated a law banning smoking in any way shape or form. In fact, most explicitly mentioned their distaste for it.
I find your hostility towards a PSA to discourage kids from smoking strange.
Hollywood’s version of ‘Don’t ask … don’t tell?’ | WHAT WOULD TOTO WATCH?on 14 Jul 2008 at 11:37 am 24[…] then there’s always the one-sided battle against smoking on screen. Aren’t there any actors who smoke and are willing to stand up for this creative […]