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.
rkz wrote: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.
rkz wrote: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.....