More Hollywood Studios Say ‘No Smoking’

[ken worley]

The point I believe I was trying to get at is, they spent 40% of their time in a bar, drinking at a rate of 5+ drinks per hour, over the course of days of script-time, yet,
No one misses any work.
No one gets sick, hung over, or obnoxious.
No one gets pot-bellied, unkempt, sloppy, or soiled.
They remain glib, hip, snappy, and get all the sex.
No realistic consequences ever occur.

What 13 year-old boy isn't going to be absorbing the message, "copious alcohol consumption is cool?...."


As I said...I think our society has a responsibility to educate its youth.(and adults) about this programming's existence, and how to critical-think their way above and beyond it.

Despite your valid point that wisdom comes from seeing what is there, and learning through it, not every young viewer of this insidious propaganda hs a parent who is both there to watch with them and smart enough themselves to know what's being shoveled....


That is why activism is necessary...to disseminate information which might otherwise lurk in convenient(for the profiteer's) shadows.

[rkzenrage]

drinking at a rate of 5+ drinks per hour

And you see this as real time?
My four-year-old knows the difference between make-believe and real life.
The shadows?
Broadcast in the shadows? Huh?

[ken worley]

drinking at a rate of 5+ drinks per hour

And you see this as real time?
My four-year-old knows the difference between make-believe and real life.

At each interval in which they were shown sitting at the bar, engaged in conversation, say, for two minutes, (of "real" time, IOW, unbroken conversational intercourse, without scene cuts), the main characters took a drink of their beer/wine/scotch pretty much every time the camera panned to them...about one swallow every 30 seconds.
Every segment in which they were shown in the bar(as I already stated 40% of the show's runtime), they continued to imbibe at this rate.

So, in what would be the character's "real time" they drank at a rate of 5+ alcohol-beverages per hour.(probably much more...If you take a swallow of scotch every thirty seconds, how many 2 OZ glasses do you drink in 60 minutes?)

Broadcast in the shadows? Huh?

"The shadows"is a (admittedly cliched)way of saying "behind the scenes" or "without being explained/highlighted/brought to the audiences attention."

In the way I meant the phrase: The activism you seem so adamantly opposed to is a non litigative/legislative way of vocally objecting to these soft/subtextual advertising practices, and will at least draw attention to, or put the spotlight on them, thus taking the practice "Out of the shadows."

[rkzenrage]

How did you find out about it?
Documents smuggled out in someone's rectum?
Again, I don't like the inner-production ads, thought they have the right.
But, if they are in a bar they should be drinking.

[ken worley]

How did you find out about it?
Documents smuggled out in someone's rectum?

I don't think the level of secrecy is maintained at a level quite high enough for that sort of practice to become necessary

Again, I don't like the inner-production ads, thought they have the right.
But, if they are in a bar they should be drinking.

But, should they only be in a bar because the alcohol lobby bought that into the storyline?

And should the networks/studios, for a fee, bend reality by showing massive alcohol abuse without consequence, in effect telling young people..."Don't listen to anyone, it IS possible to party your nuts off constantly, and still be successful, attractive, and problem-free." ?...

I agree that they have a right...It is their studio, their investment.

But what is your objection to people protesting/boycotting/vocally engaging in activist efforts to change it?

Would you rather have concerned citizens having a voice in what their children are taught, or leave all decisions of programming to whoever has the deepest pockets/least moral objection to brainwashing people?


Because, face the real world, guy...Most parents are NOT checked in enough to monitor/explain all of what their kids are watching, at home, in the theaters, at friends' houses, and on youtube from the library computer...


Seagram's, Phillip Moris, and the Las Vegas tourism and Visitors Bureau will gladly take advantage of this impossibly hole-filled safety net.(another cliched metaphor...I am not saying there is an actual "net" anywhere.)


EDIT: It seems like the only real dispute here is whether protestors/activists have a right to "control what you can see on your tv/movie screen"

I contend that these are already being controlled, but by corporate entities, and the activism is an attempt to halt this control, through consumor pressure/protest.

I allow that the antismoking faction can get extreme and pushy, and ask for more than what is fair and rational.

But your own OP link seems to say that the studios are choosing a middle-ground path, not whitewashing reality to be free of all tobacco use, but not glamorizing it either.

[Rainswept]

My god what a long boring read. I plowed through it all, however.

My conclusion? I don't care enough to worry about people trying to sell me shit during tv/films. James Bond movies constantly do things like that and I still love 'em.

Most of the shows who pull the crap Ken describes are going to suck because of it. Frasier is the only show you mentioned I even found remotely watchable, and that one was very hit & miss. I do remember they seemed to have spent alot more time in that coffe shop than drinking tho.

..... I would personally support some tax money be used for funding social awareness programs to teach people critical thinking skills, and to warn them of these insidious ad practices, and a grass-roots push to pressure studios/networks to put social responsibility, and the health of their audience above short-term monetary gain.

This I take exception to. This is a use for private funds and charities, NOT a reason to take my money.

[rkzenrage]

FRIENDS IS TRYING TO ADDICT ME TO COFFEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!

I don't think the level of secrecy is maintained at a level quite high enough for that sort of practice to become necessary

Secrecy? Yeah, those "secret" Internet searches are a real bitch.

I guess it's time for the carrot companies to dish out more to compete then.

brainwashing

Dude, that is hilarious.

[ken worley]

.... Frasier is the only show you mentioned I even found remotely watchable, and that one was very hit & miss. I do remember they seemed to have spent alot more time in that coffe shop than drinking tho.

It wasn't so much that they hung out in bars, but I recall the show (which I liked btw) portrayed alcohol in a dependency-is-cute kinda way.
When something shocking, stressful or emotionally shaking occured, alcohol was almost invariably the first solution. Whenever anything good happened, alcohol was always the centerpiece of celebration...When you have two psychiatrists who speak rationally about solving the real problem(s) then turn immediately to alcohol when stressed, it does send a message to the impressionable, imo...I have no reference to cite to document that the brewers and distillers lobby influenced the production of this show, but I remember watching the number of incidences of scripted alcohol referenceat the time, and thinking, "My god, someone must be paying them for this."
And the incidence in that show now seems minor by comparison to some of the current crop of shows.I agree, they are terrible, but if you want a shock, do what I did, and study a typical episode with an eye to counting instances of alcohol use/consumption...startling in volume, IMO.

..... I would personally support some tax money be used for funding social awareness programs to teach people critical thinking skills, and to warn them of these insidious ad practices, and a grass-roots push to pressure studios/networks to put social responsibility, and the health of their audience above short-term monetary gain.

This I take exception to. This is a use for private funds and charities, NOT a reason to take my money.

Look at it this way...The effects of uninformed citizenry is already a tax burden, and will increase dramatically as the populace gets more constantly immersed in ad propaganda, and the advertisers get more and more clever about how to subtly manipulate viewer behavior.

I look at public education/critical thinking/right-to-know information the same way I look at immunizations or condom ads.

A dollar spent now teaching kids to look out for, recognize, and dismiss these ultra-manipulative media images, whether ostensible or subcontextual, will save 5 dollars in detox/health insurance premium increase/imprisonment/etc. down the road.

That is why I would definitely favor shifting some of the current tax dollars into programs like this, and even willingly see another dollar or two a week come out of my paycheck, if it went to this purpose.


There are precious few parents out there with the critical thinking skills to see what's being pushed at them, let alone teach their children what to reject.

I'd like to see commercials on my tv saying something to the effect, "Hey, kids, even though all the characters on tv drink/smoke/overeat/and engage in all manner of risky, self-destructive behaviors, and never suffer any negative results, real life doesn't work that way, and if you try to live like they do, even for a few weeks, you'll be unemployed, friendless, ill, physically wasted and maybe incarcerated."

Y'know...the other half of the equation.

[rkzenrage]

Would you rather have concerned citizens having a voice in what their children are taught, or leave all decisions of programming to whoever has the deepest pockets/least moral objection to brainwashing people?

I was under the impression we were discussing entertainment? Did we change topics?

No one misses any work.
No one gets sick, hung over, or obnoxious.
No one gets pot-bellied, unkempt, sloppy, or soiled.
They remain glib, hip, snappy, and get all the sex.
No realistic consequences ever occur.

I shutter to think at what happens when you see a show where people can fly.

[ken worley]

Would you rather have concerned citizens having a voice in what their children are taught, or leave all decisions of programming to whoever has the deepest pockets/least moral objection to brainwashing people?

I was under the impression we were discussing entertainment? Did we change topics?

Not at all.
As part of the growth process, children and young adults must learn both factual information (such as grammar and algebra), and culturally acceptable behaviors and customs. Most of the factual information comes in school. The cultural information comes by observation and emulation.
In a perfect world, all children would have intelligent, attentive, mentally healthy parents, and an extended set of trustworthy relatives, friends, and neighbors to supply such social education.
Unfortunately, this is not the case.
Families seldom know their immediate neighbors anymore, their extended familial branches are scattered, and out of touch, and the parents often have to work long hours in their jobs, or even two jobs, to make ends meet.

Increasingly, what should be mere entertainment takes the place of the extended family/village counsel.
In fact, the less "checked-in" or responsible a parent is, the more likely their children will seek any source but them for social guidance/role models.

No one misses any work.
No one gets sick, hung over, or obnoxious.
No one gets pot-bellied, unkempt, sloppy, or soiled.
They remain glib, hip, snappy, and get all the sex.
No realistic consequences ever occur.

I shutter(sic) to think at what happens when you see a show where people can fly.

Unless I miss my guess, you are purposely feigning an obtuse inability to understand the point I am trying to make, in order to be irritating.

If not, I apologize for the assumption, and will try to clarify.

Obvious fantasy in movies and tv is easily recognizable by all but a handful of viewers.(very young children and the mentally disabled, for example.)
For most of the audience, things like flying people, or magical spells, or werewolfs, for instance, are easily seperable from reality.

The line between truth and fiction gets a little blurrier when it comes to tv and movie characters engaging in behavior like drinking, smoking, or using drugs.
These are things that real people can do in real life. Things which children and young teens will at some point, and soon, be exposed to in real life.

Actual commercials for these things, or ostensibly scripted highlighting of these behaviors isn't so much of an issue, as it is part of the "show", and is easily dismissed as fiction by the child's conscious "filter".

The problem, IMO, arises when the self-destructive behaviors are laced subtextually into the hero character's actions, as a "given"

Now the child is not being "told" how he should behave, which most teens readily reject.
Nor are they being presented with the behavior as a highlighted part of the plot, which could lead to a conscious examination of the pros and cons of these behaviors.

With subtextual advertisement, there is no conscious highlighting of the behavior. The child/teen is seeing the overt action/dialogue, featuring heroicly successful, sexy, respected-by-their-peers characters, who "just happen to" also suck down massive quantities of alcohol, or chain-smoke, etc.

Asked "Is this a real person?" they will say "Of course not"

But subliminally, the behaviors of smoking/drinking/etc. have been tied to images of "coolness" and success, and that can persist in the child's world-view, even though they know that the show itself is make-believe.

And this is especially true among teens who've already begun experimenting with cigarettes, alcohol, and drugs. The positive behavior-reinforcement aspect is even stronger than the "cold-start-programming" aspect, as studies of youth and tobacco advertisement have shown.

As for my personal objections to these product placements, there are two.

1. I will pay higher taxes/insurance/everything else in the future because of the people who are "helped" to develop addictions and self-destructive lifestyles through these practices.

2. I don't like the idea that some action/dialogue of the movies/shows I am watching have been stuffed full of pointless and non-essential corporate-paid crap. It detracts from the quality of the work.

[rkzenrage]

People drive in them too and it kills more than smoking. Kids can't drive, we must stop driving in kids movies!!!

I smoke a cigar or pipe once a week or two, I drink once a month or so... that is what my son will see as a role model and who will teach him about tobacco and alcohol, not the television.
As for what is cool, I am/will teach and show him that those ruled by their vices are FAR from cool and not to trust television, movies, or ads. If you can't do that, you should not have kids.
End of story.

I agree with you about any education/authority, I will teach him to second-guess them as well.

Anyone with an agenda should not be trusted at face-value, EVER. I will teach him that that is a weakness.

[ken worley]

......As for what is cool, I am/will teach and show him that those ruled by their vices are FAR from cool and not to trust television, movies, or ads. If you can't do that, you should not have kids.
End of story.

Quite true...
...but that doesn't stop unfit parents from having kids.
Should we as a culture say of such children, "Their tough luck for being sprung from losers."?

Anyone with an agenda should not be trusted at face-value, EVER. I will teach him that that is a weakness.

That is fortunate for your child...
All I am trying to say, though, is that since not all impressionable youths have such a vigilant guide, and since it must remain free for studios/networks/writers-of-scripts to be free of government censorship...

Then it is imperative for the sake of future society that NON-Legislative pressures be brought to bear against these influential entities, to discourage them from taking money to promote vice.
(Or to at least to encourage them to display some level of social conscience.)

[rkzenrage]

...but that doesn't stop unfit parents from having kids.
Should we as a culture say of such children, "Their tough luck for being sprung from losers."?

I will never be ok with the state monitoring art, rating is ok, but not trying to change it.
I have no issue with legal products advertising.