Posted by Bill's News on 05/12/07 23:46

"Film Buff" <Fred_C@Dobbs.MTN> wrote in message
news:vht943p43ugl1nhlqpomsm9ov3jbh7ok7k@4ax.com...
> does this mean that almost every film from the 20s thru now
> would be classified "R" because of smoking?
> think about it - almost every Warners film would be classied
> "R" because someone lit up
> Look at the westerns - almost every old western has someone
> smoking a pipe or cigar or chewing tobacco
> Just think of - "Casablanca" now "R" rated along with "Maltese
> Falcon", "Now Voyager"
> Almost all of John Wayne's films would be "R" rated because he
> lit up
> The list just goes on and on
>

<snip>

Well, if "they" were serious about hiding
celebrities-paid-to-smoke from easily influenced minds (some of
whom apparently post here;-) wouldn't it be appropriate to apply
this standard to ALL films? Why would Bogart/Bacall or Bette
Davis be less R than say . . . Corey Haim?

• Next in forum: Re: MPAA does something good? Adds smoking as a reason for an R rating.
• Prev in forum: Re: A movie assist
• Thread view: Re: MPAA does something good? Adds smoking as a reason for an R rating.

[Reply to this message]