Coalition Says Movies Try To Sell You Tasty, Cool Cigarettes

Hollywood blogger Nikki Finke reports the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, the California Youth Advocacy Network and the American Medical Association Alliance have teamed to launch an ad campaign to warn against Hollywood’s tendency to shill for the tobacco industry.

It’s long been noted that movies tend to go over-the-top by including cigarette smoking scenes, which many industry observers believe are evidence of a wink-and-nod agreement between big studios and tobacco companies, despite the fact that all suspected parties deny there’s a connection. Philip Morris USA even has a policy that forbids studios from using their logos and products in films.

The anti-smoking in movies coalition is attempting to call studios out, Finke writes:

Mobile billboards will drive around Los Angeles, and stop by the major studios, today and tomorrow showing a young girl asking, “Which movie studios will cause me to smoke this summer?” Using Facebook and Twitter, a scorecard will regularly tally the number of tobacco impressions in this summer’s youth-rated blockbusters. A letter-writing and petition drive across the country will commence during the blockbuster season. And, at the end of September, billboard will be strategically placed near the studio with the worst summer record for encouraging smoking in its summer films.

“The blockbuster season’s first example of smoking in a youth-rated film is 20th Century Fox’s X-Men Origins: Wolverine. It has numerous scenes of the main star, actor Hugh Jackman, with a cigar. Another PG-13 blockbuster, Angels & Demons by Sony Pictures, includes tobacco imagery,” the campaign said (Wednesday).

At least Angels & Demons does promote a positive social message — having Tom Hanks do away with that mullet he had in The Da Vinci Code.

Which Movie Studio Will Cause The Most Youth To Smoke This Summer? Yours? [Deadline Hollywood Daily]


Edit Your Comment

  1. GenerousHelpingOf_GitEmSteveDave says:

    OK, people smoke. It’s a part of the public. Apparently a huge part judging by all the laws passed.

    You know what? The porn industry is large as well, and it’s not good for minors. So how about we ban sex and skin in movies? I mean, they only put them in movies to sell porn, right?


    P.S. Phil? You do realize that Wolverine’s cigar was never lit in the movie, right? At least in the version I down…I mean saw.

    • Josh_G says:


      I like the porn comparsion. Now we just need a mobile billboard with a young girl asking, “Which movie studios will cause me to experiment sexually this summer?”

      Seriously though, smoking in movies has gotten way toned down from what it used to be. While if anything the sex and alcohol has gotten ramped way up to compensate. Take your average movie about college for example.

    • pbj_sushi says:
    • zandar says:


      There’s no good reason to ban it, and every reason not to. To simply deny something exists will seem ridiculous. Something that is suppressed will pop up in some unexpected way, usually in an unpleasant way. I say leave it alone.

      That said, the billboard campaign doesn’t seem incompatible with smoking in movies. Merely raising awareness of how things influence us is a GOOD thing. Leave the smoking and ask people: you may think it looks cool because you’ve seen it in a movie- is that a good reason to start?

    • johnva says:

      @HasPonies!Envy_GitEmSteveDave: Difference – sexuality is not inherently bad for you. Smoking is.

      • chauncy that billups says:

        @johnva: Casual violence in movies is inherently bad for you. should we ban all movie violence?

        • johnva says:

          @bilups: Nope, not necessarily. I don’t think that smoking should be banned, either. I just think that it’s disingenuous to compare sex with smoking.

      • morlo says:

        @johnva: Sex with another person is worse than smoking due to the whole miracle of life thing.

      • pop top says:

        @johnva: Drinking can be bad for you too, and we know that Budweiser (if not other beer/other alcohol companies) had product placement agreements with several movies and TV shows. Why isn’t that more regulated?

      • HasPonies!Envy_GitEmSteveDave says:

        @johnva: So you are saying teen smoking is bad, but teen pregnancy/STI’s is perfectly OK?

        My stance is this. If a lot of people do it in real life, then don’t think by taking it out of a movie, it will stop people from being influenced by it when they are in the real world for the other 22 hours of the day. I mean, they never showed a toilet in Star Trek, but did that mean the people watching stopped using them after watching?

      • Cyberxion101 says:

        @johnva: Sex can be pretty bad for you if you’re not educated about the dangers associated with it. Aids for example.

  2. Joewithay says:

    Well Wolverine needs to smoke, it is part of his character from the comics. Plus he can never get cancer anyway with his healing powers.

    • Rectilinear Propagation says:

      @Joewithay: Even if they knew that they probably wouldn’t care. They’d say that the studio should have ‘fixed’ that part.

    • B1663R says:

      @Joewithay: yes, but you can…


      • Joewithay says:

        @B1663R: lol, I can imagine an PSA of Hugh Jackman at the end of moving saying something like that:

        “Remember Kids, as Wolverine I can heal and you can’t. Don’t smoke.”

        /Shooting_Star “The More You Know”

    • geneb5 says:

      @Joewithay: So what explains Lois Lane chain-smoking Marlboro Lights in Superman I & II, when she never touched a cigarette in 40 years of previous comics?

      Oh, Philip Morris paid for the promotion? OK, no problem.

      • JPropaganda says:

        @geneb5: We’re not talking about Superman I and II. We’re talking about a character who has ALWAYS smoked cigars. It would be disingenuous if he didn’t in the new movie.

    • Coyote says:

      @Joewithay: ding, ding, ding

      The truly sad thing about these anti-smoking/drinking/sex/gambling/drug ads is they are little better than the substance they are trying to fight.
      Most of the time they sensationalize it more than movies ever could. Causing kids to WANT to try it (or being so blatantly retarded it comes off as a joke and not a warning).
      They also have their own investments in these so called vices. Honestly if everyone stopped smoking tomorrow would these people would be happy? Most of them, no, they would be out of a job.
      Vices come in all sizes and varieties and for some of us they are the things that make life worthwhile.

    • korybing says:

      @Joewithay: I was just going to mention that too. Wolverine without a cigar is not Wolverine at all. Wolverine has smoked cigars for literally decades.

      I’m all for keeping people aware of the fact that smoking is dangerous, but I don’t think the anti-smoking people are going about it the right way. I’ve know several smokers who are even more stubborn about quitting smoking now that the ads are out, just because they think they’re obnoxious and self-righteous. Not quitting because an ad tells you you should quit isn’t the best reason to do anything, but people do it.

      If the ads were more informational and less “you’re a moron if you smoke” I think they’d have a better impact.

    • cuchanu says:

      @Joewithay: That’s funny. I can’t bring myself to type lol but if I could you would have earned it.

    • NumberFourtyThree says:

      That reminds me of this comic:

  3. Rectilinear Propagation says:

    “Which movie studios will cause me to smoke this summer?”

    It’s a PG-13 movie, not a G rated Disney film. By the time I was old enough to watch those films my parents had convinced me that smoking was the nastiest thing ever.

    Does anyone remember the campaign a while back to try to make smoking scenes a reason to automatically make a movie rated R? Freaking ridiculous. There’s a difference between showing characters that smoke and endorsing smoking.

    • Tmoney02 says:

      @Rectilinear Propagation: I thought that went through?

    • korybing says:

      @Rectilinear Propagation: I agree. I find the old smoking scenes from movies in the 30’s to be incredibly cool and sexy, but I also know that I don’t really want to put that crap in my lungs.

      I’m smart enough to realize that characters in a movie won’t get lung cancer unless it’s a relevant plot point, while I could either be perfectly safe or die from emphazema if I took up the habit. I don’t feel like taking the chance.

      And hell, when I was a kid there was 0% pressure to take up smoking and I thought that everybody who did were losers. It wasn’t until college when I discovered that people smoke for other reasons than “to look cool” and when the high pressure of college got to me, I finally had to make a serious decision about smoking.

    • Jessica Haas says:

      @Rectilinear Propagation: Exactly, none.

      Not just because of the reasons you mention (which I agree with) but because this girl is not old enough to legally possess them.

  4. Face Imploder says:

    Seriously, why do people seem this stupid? If Hollywood were depicting real life (even the dank-stanky parts of it) there are plenty of people who smoke. If there were NOBODY smoking in movies, then they would be unrealistic. It’s insane.

    Plus, cigars ARE cool.

  5. Murph1908 says:

    So. Let me make sure I understand the current rules about what is ok for a movie (or video game).

    Sex or nudity – Bad
    Smoking – Bad
    Any hint of racial bias – Bad
    Violence, explosions, killings – OK.
    Violence towards animals – Bad.


    • tinky XIII says:

      @Murph1908: Welcome to America!

    • geneb5 says:

      @Murph1908: Yes, you’re confused, but it’s not the ratings’ fault, it’s yours. The ratings system is meant to guide moviegoers who may be concerned about certain issues, especially in regards to child-rearing. Ratings are meant to help guide parents in choosing a movie their kids might see. Not many parents want their 13-year-olds to be suddenly exposed to an intense nude sex scene in, say, Wolverine. This would of course, increase adult patronage, but would cost Wolverine its PG rating. Levels of violence are also taken into account.

      This is not to say sex is per se bad, or explosions good.

      The ratings are simply a guide, and were put into place because of public concerns.

      It’s a little tedious to have to explain all this, but more info is readily available online, should knowing what you’re talking about concern you.

      • Notsewfast says:


        The problem, as I understand it, though is that the ratings system has gone from being a ‘guide’ to the de facto law for movies. There is little transparency regarding what makes one move ‘more adult’ than another and if you push the limit too far, you get slapped with an NC-17 rating, which means that theaters will not screen your movie.

        Its fine if there is a guide in place for content, I think everyone agrees that that is helpful, but when it is shrouded in mystery, producers and directors can’t accurately target their movies because they don’t know when they’ve hit the boundary of unacceptable content.

        • The Porkchop Express says:

          @Secret Agent Man: It’s like the howard stern fcc issue. George carlin also said it….

          Give a list of what can and can’t be said/shown/illuded to.

        • korybing says:

          @Secret Agent Man: Exactly, the ratings system for movies is incredibly ridiculous and varies widely from one movie to the next for the most inane reasons. They’ve gone from being a “guide” to being the difference in millions of dollars for the moviemakers. One slip up and they get an NC-17, which is financial death for a movie. And the rules that determine between R and NC-17 are so often totally arbitrary.

          I saw a good documentary about this subject called This Fill Is Not Yet Rated and it was a very interesting film about the process of movie ratings.

          • Jessica Haas says:

            @korybing: Thanks for that suggestion — I’ve been meaning to see it and it’s actually on google video in it’s entirety. I’m actually watching it now.

      • Murph1908 says:


        I understand what the rating system is for.

        You missed my point entirely, as evidenced by your statement “Levels of violence are also taken into account.”

        I find it absurd that a reference to smoking is being demonized in a movie that is filled with violence.

        I don’t smoke, nor am I a proponent of censorship. I am just a logical person who finds the rating system and the morality being imposed by it illogical. All the violence and death are fine, but don’t show anyone smoking!

        The idiocy is also present in video games. In GTA4, you could kill people in graphic and bloody fashions. But if you dare show sex in any graphic manner, you are AO and lose shelf space.

        In Resident Evil, you kill human zombies all day. But oh no, not dog zombies. That’s cruelty, and will get your game protested.

        It’s a little tedious to have to explain all this to you. But there’s a documentary called “This Film is Not Yet Rated” that’s available, if you are concerned about knowing what you are talking about.

    • geneb5 says:


      I know the movie. And being as naive and gullible as you, I believe everything I see in the movies or read on the internet. As I recall, the film is overblown and deals almost exclusively with sex and violence. It finds conflict and inconsistency about these issues at the MPAA. Duh. This reflects America. There’s always going to be differing standards, and the MPAA is in the middle of a broader war. Perhaps you’ve heard–there has been sex and violence and death in storytelling since before Oedipus and the Bible. These are major problematic parts of life, and since time immemorial have been an integral part of mankind’s stories.

      And I know the MPAA. I’m no fan of it, but it serves, imperfectly, a purpose. It has problems. So do smarmy, snarky documentaries. A modicum of research, performed before blowing off, would have shown you that people have been fighting Jack Valenti and the MPAA over smoking for well over a decade before “Not Yet Rated” ever came out–even before Al Gore slammed Hollywood over smoking in 1997 (a study had just been released showing there was more smoking in 1990-1995 movies than there had been in the 70s).

      We’re talking basic MPAA intent here, which is to alert people, especially parents, to issues they care about. And they care about sex and violence–and smoking. This has nothing to do with your hysterical squeals of “demonization.”

      Poor child, you can’t come up with your own tagline?

      • Murph1908 says:

        You are making my point, and you don’t even realize it. My point from the beginning was that the system is illogical, allowing violence and death, but taking a hard line on even the most fleeting sexual encounter, solitary f-bomb, or puff on a cigarette.

        Die Hard 4 killed showed how many deaths? Bruce can throw a woman down an elevator shaft, he couldn’t say “Yippie-ky-ay mother fucker” one time in the climax of the movie?

        “And I know the MPAA. I’m no fan of it, but it serves, imperfectly, a purpose.”

        And I was pointing out the imperfections. For that, you call me confused, and start spewing off a defense of the MPAA like you were in their employ. So either you are the one who is confused, or you are just a sorry, basement-dwelling fuck who’s only jollies come from ridiculing people on comment boards.

        How’s that for a tagline?

  6. B1663R says:

    hell, the Simpson’s promote smoking in their show all the freaking time!!!

    ahh… i’m in flavor country

    smooth Laramie cigarettes

    not banned yet and been on the air for damn near 20 odd years!!

    • HasPonies!Envy_GitEmSteveDave says:

      @B1663R: Yeah, why is it cartoons only show us what real life is/should be like?

      • MitchEvious says:

        @B1663R: “Bart, you’re going to smoke *every* one of these cigarettes” I think that was the episode where the mob was storing cigarettes in Bart’s room.

  7. Rectilinear Propagation says:

    I’d also like to point out that there are at least two web sites that review movies for parents to help them determine whether or not a movie is appropriate for their children and both point out whether or not there are smoking scenes in them:


    Granted these kinds of sites tend to be religious but they will describe offending content. So it’s not like you can’t look this information up.

    • ElizabethD says:

      @Rectilinear Propagation:

      I have always liked “Screen It”, which I used to use to monitor what movies I’d let our kids see, and continue to use simply for the reviews and some idea of how icky or terrifying the content will be (for myself! LOL).


      • stezton says:

        @ElizabethD: @ElizabethD:

        Those kinds of sites have always made me wonder something. Yes, the writers for those sites watch “bad” movies so they can warn parents, but I wonder if after awhile they find themselves ejoying it. ;-)

        • Rectilinear Propagation says:

          @stezton: I also always wondered why they even bother breaking down R-rated films. But then I assume these sites are mainly for parents with young children not parents of 16 and 17 year olds.

  8. Shadowman615 says:

    For the love of God, get these people away from the movie industry. Why do so many people think it’s their job to sanitize entertainment for everyone else?

  9. nataku8_e30 says:

    I’m looking forward to when they manage to get smoking banned from all movies, then they can focus on keeping characters from eating trans fats in movies.

    Seriously, these freaking groups keep winning their battles, but then they have nothing to do, so they keep pushing the line farther and farther.

  10. William Ellis says:

    Ridiculous. As long as bad parents expect the MPAA and government entities to do the dirty work, there will always be someone/thing to blame.

    It doesn’t take a village. It takes mom and/or dad to say, “NO!”

  11. edwardso says:

    I’m much more concerned about violence in movies than smoking.

  12. jwm1314 says:

    Movies, TV don’t make me want to smoke ANYTHING. Even from a young age. Same as they don’t want me to kill anyone, get into a dance off, take the blue pill, or get caught in a giant tween comedy romp plot with robots. You know what does? My friends.

    I’ll just stick with non addictive and non killing pot ;)

  13. shepd says:

    Whenever I hear about this, all I can think about is the end of the movie Escape from LA.

    + Watch video


  14. Brazell says:

    Anti-Smoking groups are just mad because smoking is cool and they are not.

  15. Chadams28 says:

    I fear for the free-time our nation’s adults are wasting by creating these anti-smoking groups.

    Also, where was the furor over “Good Night & Good Luck”? Hopefully they don’t assume that that film will be gaining cult status with the 18 and under crowd anytime soon.

  16. Etoiles says:

    I’m really big on anti-smoking campaigns, but this is a load of stupid crap.

    There’s smoking in movies because of narrative, genre, and artistic conventions that we as a society first started putting into our films a hundred years ago. Cigarettes are signifiers, not always conscious on part of the filmmakers, and the way they go through a scene helps tell the viewer something about that scene. They’re a visual shortcut.

    If characters on Saturday morning cartoons start lighting up regularly, THEN we have a problem.

    • johnva says:

      @Etoiles: Here’s the thing, though: it does create an impression of, at the very least, normality for smoking.

      I understand that they aren’t always doing it to promote smoking. But they’re not really trying to promote NOT SMOKING, either. I think they could do that without sacrificing the artistic integrity (ha ha) of their films anymore than they do when they use product placement or place pro-government, pro-war propaganda into film.

      It’d be nice to believe that movies are a piece of art created in a vacuum, but I just don’t believe that. I think they do have an effect on society and I think it’s important for them to be socially responsible when they can be for little sacrifice.

      • The Porkchop Express says:

        @johnva: waterworld, the smokers were bad people.

        XXX- “told him those things would kill him” after using a heat seeking missle to kill the smoking bad guy.

        not that these are real examples, but they also don’t-not promote violence, casual sex, disrespectful behavior towards others, unhealthy food, booze…..I could really go on.

        FYI: I love violent movies with all the bad things I just listed, and more. haven’t killed, raped, or robbed anyone yet.

    • Powerlurker says:


      I know that one of the reasons why smoking was pretty common in old movies was that it was an easy way to solve the directorial issue of “what do we have the actors do with their hands?”

  17. Anonymously says:

    Having recently watched The Exorcist, it was very shocking to see doctors smoking in a hospital (and all of the smoking in general). Compared to older movies like this, current movies have almost no smoking in them at all.

  18. your new nemesis says:

    “Which movie studios will cause me to smoke this summer?” WTF is this crap? Seriously, when did movies trump personal responsibilty and decision making. When I started (yeah yeah, its bad for me, got it) it was because my friend pulled me aside into the woods and shoved a menthol in my hand and said try this, not because i saw some movie star smoking. I don’t emulate actors, i’m a sucker for peer pressure.

  19. Atticka says:

    Anyone notice how much smoking was going on in the movie Valkyrie? I just saw it the other day and it was pretty blatant with over the top scenes of German officers smoking.

    Check it out…you’ll see what I mean.

    • nakedscience says:

      @Atticka: I’m going to think that it wasn’t over the top, but rather pretty typical for the time and place.

      • korybing says:

        @nakedscience: Yeah exactly. Smoking was much more wide-spread in the 30s and 40s. Go look at anything from that time period; movies, ads, photographs, etc. They’re full of smoking. I’m assuming they were trying to be semi-accurate for the time period in that regard.

        The fact that the smoking has been noticed as “over the top” I would think is more of an indicator to how much less we smoke today, since we’re not used to it.

    • Powerlurker says:


      Well, if they weren’t smoking, how would you know how cool they were?

    • Rectilinear Propagation says:

      @Atticka: I saw that movie recently and I didn’t notice it. I don’t know if it’s because it just didn’t seem odd or what.

      Did any of the main good guys smoke? If not maybe that’s why I didn’t notice it. Bad guys smoking doesn’t count.

      (I swear I’m thinking back and I can’t recall any smoking scenes.)

  20. TheBursar says:

    Well, you cant spell coalition without COAL.

  21. P_Smith says:

    Product placement in moview isn’t anything new, and Stylvester Stallone is one of the worst offenders, having taken cigarette money for decades.




    Every time I see “Repo Man”, I can’t help but smile at all the generic products seen throughout the flick: “drink”, “beer”, and other no-name stuff.

    As it happens, tonight there’s an episode of the X-Files on in syndication, “Brand X”, where Mulder and Scully go up against Morley Cigarette Company.


    Talk about second hand smoke being lethal….

  22. cjones27 says:

    Look, it’s been proven that the only thing second-hand smoke causes is second-hand coolness.

    So you’re welcome.

  23. FoxCMK says:

    How about Laurie in the Watchmen movie? Part of what made her character relatable, human, and vulnerable was her addiction to smoking in the graphic novel. Canned for the movie because they producers didn’t want to send the “wrong message.”

  24. korybing says:

    I had no problem avoiding cigarettes when I was a kid. My father smoked them and I thought they were horrible. The only people I knew who smoked that were my age were awful. I knew the difference between media and real life and knew that people smoking in movies did not equal how people should act in real life.

    When I got to college, however, all that changed. The high pressure of the classes made me realize that people smoked cigarettes for more reasons than ‘coolness’, and that it actually helped with stress. THIS was when I had to make tough decisions and resist the pressures to start smoking, not when I was a kid.

    In fact, when I was a kid I thought the anti-smoking ads were totally stupid and patronizing. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that those ads have actually turned on some kids to smoking, just to say “F-U” to those dumb ads.

  25. ospreyguy says:

    Name 3 people you know that started smoking because they saw it in a movie. Crap. They saw their parents, friends, etc doing it. Or were told from the time they were 3 that it was a sin and horrible and when they hit 12 and found a cig machine bought some just for the rush.

    Just as dumb and Joe the Camel made me do it.

  26. CumaeanSibyl says:

    Any time I see someone smoking on screen these days, it’s either a bad guy, or a good guy with a cigar. Not sure what the cigar lobby’s going for (remember Independence Day?) but cigarettes are a strictly bad-guy vice.

    I mean, James Bond used to smoke, and now he doesn’t. There’s your cultural shift.

    • Rectilinear Propagation says:

      @CumaeanSibyl: Will Smith said in one of his songs that he likes cigars. “It’s for the look though, I don’t light it.”

      …Maybe I shouldn’t think anything said in Getting Jiggy With It was serious.

  27. DeadWriter says:

    My friends that work in “The Industry” smoke. I know screenwriters that smoke. It’s kind of weird, but one part of it is a self perpetuating myth. Kids experience media (movies, music, etc…), romanticize and associate the experiences with the smoking shown and as they grow up experiment and imitate the things that they associate with being adult and with being cool. Some of those kids grow up to make new media, and one part of the cycle continues.

    That is just one part of it. While I don’t doubt that some investors are invested in cigarette companies, I don’t think that they pull the strings. I just don’t believe in conspiracy theories. I will if somebody shows me the evidence.

    What I do believe in is elevating the media. Write true characters that smoke, swear, and make poor decisions. Just show that their are consequences, don’t do it gratuitously, and if possible remove those things from the story if they are not important.

  28. zombie_batch says:

    I hate the people who are ruining movies by trying to pretend smoking doesn’t exist. Movies that still show smoking all almost always guaranteed to be better than movies that don’t. They’re compromising the characters by removing that facet which, if they existed in real life, would surely smoke because that is who they are.

    I was a smoker for 6 years, until earlier this year. Movies didn’t make me smoke, or any other form of entertainment for that matter. Nor did the lack of tobacco products in entertainment inspire me to quit. Give people some frakking credit, they can make their own decisions regarding tobacco. Hiding it and pretending it doesn’t exist is not the solution. Education would be a much more effective method than this garbage.

  29. Jessica Haas says:

    It bothers me how they have a young girl doing this, when she can’t even legally buy them herself.

  30. UrIt says:

    my freaking gosh, people KNOW that smoking is bad, if they want to do it, LET THEM. give me a freaking break and stop ruining my favorite movie companies with the crap. geez. go Crusade against something else for a change.

  31. H3ion says:

    When Harry Potter lights up a blunt, we’ll know movies have gone too far.

  32. Dan Seitz says:

    Here’s my question: considering that we’re bombarded, constantly, with anti-smoking and anti-drug campaigns, what about that marketing makes it ineffective, while an actor smoking, which isn’t nearly as aggressive (or commonplace) is such a persuasive element?

    If we’re wasting those public health funds, might be time to, say, review how these anti-smoking groups are spending their money, no?

  33. ScottCh says:

    “Smoking is cool”. Anyone who thinks that will find out otherwise down the road. I watched two close relatives die very painfully because of their smoking “habits”. They were as hooked as any crack addict.
    Nicotine is really the perfect poison. It kills you slowly enough that you’ll use it for years before you realize that you can’t stop. Then you wind up paying tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for it before you’re dead.
    Sorry to be such a douche about it, but watching loved ones die just sucks.

  34. Paul Heinrichs says:

    Obviously this campaign has been negatively influenced by such charismatic characters as Johnny Knoxville in “The Ringer”, or Edward Norton in “The Score”. Note the mention of characters that pretended to be retarded to pull the wool over America’s eyes while they furthered their own nefarious schemes of personal gain.

  35. S-the-K says:

    I call B.S.! They say that watching someone on screen with a tobacco product has a direct correlation to everyone in the audience to start smoking.

    I will bet a dollar that at some point in “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” that someone gets sliced across some part of their body by a series of razor sharp blades being held in Wolverine’s hand. I’m afraid to see the movie because it will make me run down the street slashing people with a fistful of knives.

    I’m afraid to see “Angels and Demons” because it will cause me to become a Catholic priest.

    Just like when I watched “Bullitt” and it make me drive at high speed through the streets of San Francisco.

    Just like watching all those Bogart and Bacall films on TCM where everyone chain smoked, that’s why I smoke two packs a day. Oh wait! I don’t smoke cigarettes despite seeing people on screen smoke. OMG! How can that happen?!

  36. PsiCop says:

    There are several reasons why smoking is so common in movies, few of them having anything to do with moviemakers wanting to “push” people to smoke.

    First, smoking gives the actors and actresses something to do with their hands while delivering their lines.

    Second, it also offers added means of expression in addition to using the face and voice.

    Third, depending on the era represented in the movie, smoking helps both to establish the time period, and to offer authenticity.

    Fourth, there are actors and actresses who like to smoke. Having their characters smoke, allows them to have a few puffs while they’re on-set.

    So long as all these things are all true, any means ofcoercing the studios to cut the smoking down, will only have a marginal effect.