|
|
Posted by Derek Janssen on 05/12/07 22:08
dgates wrote:
> On Sat, 12 May 2007 11:54:36 -0400, "Rich Clark"
> <rdclark2SPAM@TRAPcomcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm more concerned about historical fiction. Does the director of any movie
>>set in the 50s, when everybody smoked all the time, have to choose between
>>an automatic R and a loss of realism? Is the MPAA saying "historical
>>accuracy is restricted to people over 17?"
>
> Derek beat me to the idea of comparing this rule to giving an R rating
> when someone eats unhealthy foods.
Specifically, the idea that an overambitious health group wanted to grab
media attention for themselves by tilting at unrealistic windmills, and
throwing the big theatrical press-conference about it...
> I can't think of a scientific way to determine which is worse for a
> kid -- say, ranking these from most to least dangerous:
>
> - seeing someone shot and killed,
> - hearing someone say certain "bad" words,
> - seeing someone without their clothes on, and
> - watching someone smoke a cigarette.
Since the original link came from a conspiracy-headline site, most of
the real story context's been missing--
But think the PG13/R rating was intended more for *teen* smoking, and
any depiction where smoking by those not already fully grown adults
could be in any way damaging...
Which, the pressure groups hope to argue, constitutes "Mild drug
use"--which already shows up in ratings info--and try to get THAT media
argument started again with the FDA.
(Remember, for cause groups, Public Credibility is the Gold Coin of the
realm:
It's mined, bought, sold, refined, stolen, fevered, claim-jumped,
swindled for, and lusted after.)
Derek Janssen (and no one makes a chump outta Fred C. Dobbs!)
ejanss@comcast.net
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|