Suite101 poll: Should Peter Jackson warn audiences

I got to agree with Film Hobbit.
I think they should be education in schools and
parents should talk to their children about smoking.
And if there's still a person out there who doesn't know that
smoking causes cancer... I'm sorry..
So, I don't think they should have a warning in the movies.
And for the point that they should leave it out.. NO WAY...

I tend to agree with you all.... maybe a small ad done by the filming crew on how dangerous tobacco is... kind of a public message, like those before any movie, a 30 sec clip.

What do you think?

I think that is insane.

Again, someone please explain to me why it is the responsibility of ENTERTAINERS to educate people about the dangers of smoking?


And also, please explain to me why people need to be told that smoking is dangerous when it says right on their cigarrette packs that its going to kill them.

People are stupid, but nobody is that stupid. Just because they see Hobbits smoking in LOTR doesn't mean all the kids in the world are suddenly going to say, hey all that stuff I see about smoking killing you must not be true because I saw Hobbit's smoking pipes... BAH!

Frankly I don't want Hollywood educating our children about ANYTHING. That is our job, and if not parents, then the government. Hollywood should stick to doing what we pay them to do... ENTERTAIN us.

I agree with you Film Hobbit
100 %

Well, it's was just an idea... don't get mad!

Film Hobbit, calm down! No need to flame Shan! Another outburst like that will get you a 24 hour ban.

I think smoke is not necessary, but helps create the atmosphere. I don't think a warning message is necessary, but I think it would be a good thing to do.

Don't mind Tater... I really didn't take this as flame... he has his opinion, I respect that. And for the idea, it was something I thought of while writing last time...

Well, since I'm poking around the board today anyway, I'll point out a very serious flaw in Film Hobbit's argument.

Hollywood (or, rather, the film industry at large) engages in "education" with every movie. The movies just reflect society at large? Hardly. We don't go around performing the stunts that we see in movies, blowing up cars and buildings randomly, engaging in high-tech crimes, spying on other countries, subverting secret government organizations, falling in love with secret agents and lone wolf heroes and heroines, blah, blah, blah.

Movies sell merchandise. They always have, they always will. That is why product placement became such a rage in the 1980s and 1990s. And that is why the tobacco industry has always supported use of tobacco in the movies.

The film industry has improperly taught people that it's fun to smoke, it's okay to smoke, that it's NORMAL to smoke. That is all nonsense. Repetition of an image or idea, any image or idea, has a profound effect on the public. Way too much research has shown that to be true.

The schools are already trying to teach kids not to smoke. They fail miserably. Parents are already trying to teach kids not to smoke. They fail miserably.

You cannot put the schools and parents up against the power of the media. They get clobbered every time. Life imitates art far more than art imitates life, and that is why the film industry needs to take responsibility for the harm it has done to millions of people world-wide and at least stop protraying people as enjoying smoking, or pretending that it doesn't hurt anything or is sexy.

Most informed smokers today would quit in a heartbeat if they could. Unfortunately, the addiction is so strong many who try to quit end up going back to it.

It's time for people to stop spreading misinformation about the dangers of smoking. The film industry should at least do that much, if it's not willing to acknowledge it owes future generations a little compensation for what it's helped to do to current generations.

>>Well, since I'm poking around the board today anyway, I'll point out a very serious flaw in Film Hobbit's argument.

Hollywood (or, rather, the film industry at large) engages in "education" with every movie. The movies just reflect society at large? Hardly. We don't go around performing the stunts that we see in movies, blowing up cars and buildings randomly, engaging in high-tech crimes, spying on other countries, subverting secret government organizations, falling in love with secret agents and lone wolf heroes and heroines, blah, blah, blah.>>

They don't LITERALLY reflect society, rather they reflect our attitudes. Hollywood makes movies that they think people will like, this means they are trying to make movies that fit the current personality of america.... and some things ARE a specific reflection of the real world. Example: Teenage pregnancy becomes a problem, Hollywood does movies about teen pregnancy. Its not that Hollywood does teen pregnancy movies and suddenly kids start getting pregnant. It doesn't work that way.

>>Movies sell merchandise. They always have, they always will. That is why product placement became such a rage in the 1980s and 1990s. And that is why the tobacco industry has always supported use of tobacco in the movies.>>

True, but tobacco would have been in there whether or not they did. People in the real world smoke. Thus if you are making a movie, it only makes sense to have people smoke since THAT is reality, THAT is America. You can pretend it doesn't go on all you want, but that doesn't make it so... see what I mean?

>>The film industry has improperly taught people that it's fun to smoke, it's okay to smoke, that it's NORMAL to smoke. That is all nonsense. Repetition of an image or idea, any image or idea, has a profound effect on the public. Way too much research has shown that to be true.>>

It is NORMAL to smoke. A large percentage of the American population smokes, and has for several hundred years. Thus, even though it is bad for you, it is NORMAL to smoke. It is also normal to drink, and normal to have sex, thus often you will see these things in movies.

>>The schools are already trying to teach kids not to smoke. They fail miserably. Parents are already trying to teach kids not to smoke. They fail miserably.
>>

So why would films be successful? Ask any high school kid who is currently smoking if they think its bad for their health... they will invariably reply, yes, its probably killing me. They know. A corny ad in a movie will tell them nothing they don't already know.

>>You cannot put the schools and parents up against the power of the media. They get clobbered every time. Life imitates art far more than art imitates life, and that is why the film industry needs to take responsibility for the harm it has done to millions of people world-wide and at least stop protraying people as enjoying smoking, or pretending that it doesn't hurt anything or is sexy.>>


PEOPLE DO ENJOY smoking. So why shouldn't a movie reflect that? I mean we may wish they didn't, but a large portion of the people in the world enjoy smoking, so its only logical to see it in movies. I don't like the idea of only making films that reflect an ideal society. I prefer truth to some made up wannabe reality that doesn't really exist.

>>Most informed smokers today would quit in a heartbeat if they could. Unfortunately, the addiction is so strong many who try to quit end up going back to it.>>

Exactly. Most people are informed. They know it is bad for them. A little ad at the end of a movie will not do anything but give kids the idea that movies are there to teach them.... which they are not.

>>It's time for people to stop spreading misinformation about the dangers of smoking. The film industry should at least do that much, if it's not willing to acknowledge it owes future generations a little compensation for what it's helped to do to current generations. >>

They aren't spreading misinformation, however it sounds like you want them to. You want them to pretend that people dont' smoke, or that people don't enjoy smoking.. but the TRUTH is that they do smoke, and many enjoy it. To say otherwise would be a lie.


And I apologize to anyone who thought I was flaming... it wasn't a flame, just a debate, don't take it as anything else

Are you guys all on crack?

People smoke in all kinds of movies, and Hobbits are clearly NOT children.

Things have gone way too far with making everything polically correct and non-offensive to anyone and their grandmother.

This is a fantasy story, and clearly is not a reflection of what is acceptable in society.

If you do not understand that, then you should not be allowed to watch the movie.

Welcome to the board Thoric. I would have to agree with you.....and to some extent [/b]Film Hobbit[/b]. People smoke. People smoke in movies. Why single out LOTR when almost every movie has some sort of smoking in it. I haven't seen it yet, but I bet even The Grinch(2000) has someone, somewhere smoking.

I haven't seen it either, but you're wrong about that anduin

www.screenit.com/movies/2...stmas.html

:lol: I have never seen anything so thoroughly picked apart in my life!

"We see people drinking at a party in a flashback, but don't know if what they're consuming is alcoholic or not."

So why do they even bring it up?

What ever happened to Parents? I always thought that we were the ones who were supposed to be bringing up our children and trying our best to steer them away from the harmful things in life.
I think it is time that we take a more responsible roll in childrens lives than to be debating who should be putting up warnings and disclaiminers.

first - smoking warnings -
i thought i replied to this already, guess i ddin't. i don't think they should have warnings about smoking in LotR or any movie. why? first, it's a part of the book (albeit a minor one) & cutting out all references to pipeweed would do more damage to an already wounded movie. any filmmaker who would cut out parts of the story he's filming because they're unsavory is not an artist or creator; he's a sellout. besides, smoking is a part of Hobbit culture. this is an extreme analogy, but try to imagine "hippie culture" without the constant pot-smoking. smoking may be socially unacceptable these days, but people don't go as far as to censor out the pot-smoking in That 70's Show, for example. Hobbits without pipeweed would be less Hobbit than they were before, although this will be a minor change. but if people demand some kind of warning, a dscreet public-service ad before the movie would be a well-timed idea.

second - The Grinch Ratings -

BLOOD/GORE
The Grinch knocks over a man with his evidently pungent, green breath.
The Grinch, as a baby in a flashback, loudly belches.
The Grinch holds up some mistletoe to his furry butt and states, "Pucker up," but no one attempts to kiss him there.
We briefly see some termites run across the Grinch's teeth and lips as a lyric in a song refers to just that.
Hearing the Mayor talking in his sleep about kissing Martha, the Grinch grabs Max (the dog), turns him around butt first and puts him down toward the Mayor's lips (we don't see the contact). However, we do see the dog's bug-eyed expression, him later dragging his butt along the floor and then of the Mayor with a satisfied smile on his still sleeping face."

now HOW does this count as blood & gore? crude behavior, maybe, but this is hardly worthy complaining about. anduin, i agree with you. if they can't even be sure it COULD BE seen as offensive, they shouldn't bring it up.

third - on parents -
teaching children about violence does fall to teh parents. but i think modern society is far too paranoid about violence. yes, going out & shooting up an entire town is a bad thing to do, but things like movies & video games are escapism. one of the best stress-relievers i've found is playing wonderfully gory shoot-em-up arcade games with my friends after a long week. children exposed to violence should be taught to respect it, just as children exposed to guns (i mean exposed to them for legitimate reasons - the family hunts, etc.) should be taught to respect them. violence can be dangerous, but it's a part of life that cannot be shut out completely. and i think all parents should teach their children to live in an often-violent world than to shelter them from the inevitable.

Landroval 1st - parents should take a more active role in helping their children experience & understand the world, but i don't think parents should try to shelter their children too much. parents should certainly keep their kids away from street gangs, but this world is not Candy Land & expecting it to be is naive. i'm not trying to flame, just posting my opinion.

aryne *

I am w/ Michael [ and Legolas and the Elves!] on this one.

People imitate their influences and if you think their won't be reurgence in pipe smoking in certain lotr circles , I believe you will be in for a suprise. If this is going to be as popular as star wars , and all indications point to it. The effect it could have on our lives here will be large -hopefully it will be as the books were -inspirational.
It would be a shame if a deadlty habit grew amongst [our youth especially ] because of our beloved
Middle-earth. I would have it downplayed but not eliminated in the movies.
After all is pipeweed less dispensible than Bombadil or Glorfindel or Sauraman's death in the Shire ?
A word at the end of the movies would not be amiss and might hopefully offer a timely corrective for a few.
lindil